Clark Rockefeller eats a Turkey Sandwich and watches Coalition of Crime Bloggers post on Jeffrey Denner climb the Google charts.

I told you last week or so that I had joined the Coalition of Crime Bloggers so more people could read about Derrick Gillenwater v. Jeffrey Denner & Kevin Barron, legal malpractice allegations, a previous issue involving disciplinary proceedings of supervised attorney Richard Abbott, a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel and the Court's Unconstitutional restrictions on Plaintiff Gillenwater's First Amendment Rights in blogging and in Court filings.

This entry "Biggest lawyer in Boston, Jeffrey Denner, is in Big Trouble on criminal malpractice case" is now on the second page for Google when running "Jeffrey Denner" as a word search, so now anyone researching Attorney Denner can become more informed about actual court cases.

Such as the ongoing case of Clark Rockefeller; read about him "going to get a turkey sandwich" in this Vanity Fair story from last summer. I believe that is the back of Mr. Rockefeller's head in the picture from my last post.

Let's hope he does better for Mr. Rockefeller or whatever his name is (Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter) than he did with Kevin Barron for Derrick Gillenwater ("ineffective assistance of counsel") or with Richard D. Abbott for Oscar Atehortua (failed to file an appeal for a jailed man as Denner shed himself of the case).

Martinlutherking.org blog proves Boston Bob is right about Copyright and prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner.

This story is in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution.

It goes with the Copyright post from last week.

****************

"The King family could try to unplug Stormfront by filing an Internet domain name complaint or a lawsuit, lawyers said. But they said it would not be an easy case.

“As vile, reprehensible, ignorant and horrible as that Web site is, one could argue that it’s political comment,” said Pete Wellborn, an Atlanta lawyer who specializes in Internet law and has taught at Georgia Tech. Still, Wellborn said the Kings could succeed, especially if Stormfront is making any money off King’s name. [Note: This blog in no way seeks money off of Attorney Denner's name, as previously noted. See also the new profile comment.]

Another Atlanta Internet attorney, Doug Isenberg, said a domain name complaint is easier to pursue than a lawsuit but that the King family would have to prove a “bad faith” attempt to confuse the public. Bad faith claims often involve appropriation of a corporation’s name for a Web site that sells a competing product.

“Obviously, Stormfront and the King Center are not competitors,” Isenberg said.

Obviously, it goes without saying that this blog and Jeffrey Denner are not competitors either, so he has no real case against Boston Bob. Time to pay Derrick Gillenwater and watch Boston Bob quit posting. In fact, if I receive an email from Derrick Gillenwater asking me to take this blog down because of any settlement proceedings I will strike the whole blog because all that matters is Justice for Mr. Gillenwater, and some respect from Attorney Denner.

So Jeffrey Denner thinks he has actionable damages for copyright infringement? Better think again.

According to a recent court transcript pp 13-15 prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner believes that he has a cause of action against Derrick Gillenwater and/or Boston Bob for copyright infringment.

Well against Mr. Gillenwater, he has bupkis. Mr. Gillenwater shut down his blog shortly after the Court Unconstitutionally ordered him to do so with a ruling that was a heinously overbroad form of prior restraint.

As to me, the best he could get is a restraining order on a good day for using "dennerlaw.blogspot.com" because he uses "dennerlaw.com" as his portal. But even if he wins on that, I could be ordered to change the URL but the Court can't stop me from linking his public website in every post should I so choose.

But more importantly, he has no damages. I exposed some facts about his activities and issued a comment and opinion about them. He can open up a page on his website and address it if he likes because you fight speech with speech, not censorship.

But that's a losing battle because it just draws more attention to his questionable activities. Best he just settles with Derrick Gillenwater and who knows, I'll probably pull the blog anyway, its point and purpose having been satisfied. When I call the courthouse I just want to hear the docket clerk tell me, "Sir, this case has been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice." As to Attorneys Denner and Barron being upset about all of the people who saw this blog along the way, that's life in a Free Society. They should have settled this case a long time ago, they know what they did and they've known that for 4 or 5 years now; this is a 2005 case for Pete's sake. You snooze, you lose.

Besides, this blog is not for commercial gain. It's here to expose some serious legal issues, nothing more and nothing less. So that's yet another copyright hurdle that Denner can't leap.

I've got my IP lawyer on retainer and he's no dummy. Here's some commentary from Eugene Volokh's Volokh Conspirary on a similar issue.

Derrick Gillenwater gets beat up by the Court for not taking a settlement that was never offered.

P.9
The Court: If you took the settlement there would be no trial.

Mr. Gillenwater: There's no settlement to take.

Whereupon opposing counsel goes into the fact that Mr. Gillenwater has gone through two sets of attorneys, but the reason for that is simple: The first Attorney told Mr. Gillenwater that he wouldn't do the trial without an expert witness. But having paid more than $50,000 to Defendants, Plaintiff Gillenwater has exhausted his funds for an expert and plus, Massachusetts law does not require an expert witness in legal malpractice. Mr. Gillenwater, from what I understand, is willing to let it ride to the Jury, just subpoena Judge Moriarty to ask her why she wrote what she wrote and to whom did it apply in her legal opinion. That's it. Also the document is self-authenticating anyway, just get a court stamp on it.

Such is his inalienable right in the United States of America, a public trial where all of Boston can walk in and see him present his case against Defendant Denner. He's ready to go right now. The Court will ask questions of Mr. Gillenwater on Direct examination in narrative form, this is how its done. Simple.

The second counsel was never on board to take the case to trial, they only put in a limited appearance, and they refused to go after the Interrogatory 26 information about Denner's past involving what to me is clearly negligence with Attorney Abbott. Hell they failed to even file an Appellate Brief. In re Abbott, BD 2001-045.

Well they never got a settlement offer, but they sure did stick Mr. Gillenwater with an $11,000.00 lien that will come out of any settlement, and without the Court's permission he can't even file a Memorandum in opposition to that.

So he's fucked. Royally.

Here is the transcript; see for yourself.

PS: At page 21 the Court sends the Parties to mediation, but that didn't work, so obviously then Denner wants a trial. So that's what he will get. In the meantime Derrick Gillenwater has to be allowed to file his Motions and to reopen his blog. Who knows, there might be a trial only on damages if Mr. Gillenwater's Motion for Summary Judgment carries.

Oh, wait a minute. He's not allowed to file that Motion.......

Merry Christmas for the Cause of Justice: Derrick Gillenwater's public court hearing in which he begs for his First Amendment and other basic rights.

Some law students who are trying to help Derrick Gillenwater let me know that they are going to send me a copy of a court hearing in which Mr. Gillenwater allegedly asks for his First Amendment Rights while asking about the Motion to Compel information about Oscar Atehortua, a former client of Jeffrey Denner, who may have died in jail after Denner and Richard D. Abbott (a lawyer who rented space from Denner) failed to timely file his Appellate Brief. In re Abbott, BD 2001-045.

Here is the transcript.

PP 4-5: Watch Counsel for Defendants lie about Interrogatory 26, which asks for full disclosure of BBO and Civil Complaints against Attorney Denner. He lies and says he will produce all of the information, but I seriously doubt he has produced one damn thing. That will be for Mr. Gillenwater to address at the January 13 litigation control conference.

P.9
The Court: If you took the settlement there would be no trial.

Mr. Gillenwater: There's no settlement to take.

Here are the money quotes showing a violation of time, place and manner restrictions:

**********

P.12
Mr. Gillenwater: "I'm ready for trial in February, but can we at least have a hearing on my First Amendment so I can be able to have my blog up? There's nothing in there defamatory, it's what is in the public record that's on my blog and that's allowing me to prepare myself defensively. In an attempt that I have to represent myself I could reach out to different legal schools in the community which I have been doing to prepare me this far."

[Ignored except to the extent that Denner's lawyer and the Court rehashed the old, Unconstitutional standing Court Order.]

P.18
Mr. Gillenwater: "And to keep saying I can't speak about it publicly is clearly taking away my First Amendment right."

The Court: "It wasn't that you couldn't speak about things publicly. It was the way that you were going about it that was the issue the last time we were here."

**********

Huh? That's some SERIOUS double talk. The Court means to say, "You were mighty effective for a nigra' boy. We never expected you to be able to speak publicly so well, and we hate it."

You want more, I've got the Judge in a total lie that should result in Mr. Gillenwater filing a United States Judiciary complaint for lack of candor from the bench, in light of everything else:

****************

P.6
The Court: Okay, fine. "This thing about a request to the BBO to open an investigation, I don't have any authority to tell them to open their investigation. You have to take that up with the BBO."

**********

Okay, that is a bald-faced lie. Read 96-P 1791 Commonwealth v. Diamond. I have reason to believe that the BBO of course told Mr. Gillenwater he had no recourse with them as to the possible malpractice; he had to take it up with the Court.

The same Court that is busy denying him basic Civil Rights, of course.

Meanwhile, I can (and will) offer my observation:

As I noted yesterday, the Court is ignoring Mr. Gillenwater's request for an Emergency Hearing to regain his basic fundamental, inalienable rights. That's because if the Court stiffs him on another hearing he will have rights to file an Interlocutory Appeal. So rather than stiff him, the Court just ignores him. But on January 13 Mr. Gillenwater should politely ask for an official ruling on that Motion he filed waaaaaay back on December 4, 2008. Whether he gets one or not he should consider that the effective day, date and time of another adverse ruling and take it straight upstairs to the Supreme Court.

I sincerely doubt the Supreme Court will tolerate these lower court shenanigans.

The clock is ticking.....

PS: That's Sacco and Vanzetti in the inset of the picture I selected for today's post. In the High Court most of an entire room is dedicated to their case, which was a complete travesty of Justice. If the Court keeps on with this sort of foolishness perhaps Derrick Gillenwater's case will soon occupy a spot next to them.

Mockingbird's Robert Mulligan takes a look at Gillenwater v. Denner; becomes too offended for words, and dies on the spot.

Well not exactly but I'm sure he (and Atticus Finch) would be at least as offended as I am. Here is a story about his life and death.

Coincidence: An anonymous poster wrote in to this blog about a week ago and signed off as "Atticus Finch." Was it him? Who knows..... after all, noted New York Attorney Malpractice lawyer Andrew Lavoot Bluestone is looking on.

Derrick Gillenwater's Emergency Motion for First Amendment and Rights to File Motions to Compel and for Summary Judgment was..... ignored.

A source at Suffolk Superior Court informs me that Mr. Gillenwater did indeed file an Emergency Motion to get his First Amendment Rights back and for permission from the Court to file a Motion to Compel and for Summary Judgment.

Three weeks ago, on December 4, 2008. No response to date.

But when the high-powered Defendants Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron sought an emergency motion to get Mr. Gillenwater's blog shut down, the Court hopped to it and did the dirty deed in about 72 hours, offering up this Unconstitutional Ruling as noted by the Citizen Media Law Project.

There is a "Litigation Control Hearing" in Gillenwater v. Denner et al, 05-5469, scheduled for January 13th, 2008 at 2pm. Maybe that is when the Court will finally just go on ahead and lynch that uppity negro Derrick Gillenwater for daring to assert his rights as a United States Citizen. Then Massuh' Denner and Massuh' Barron can keep on practicing without those pesky increased malpractice insurance premiums, because gosh knows Denner can't afford any of that, with only $28M and $16M settlements under his belt from the Big Dig fiasco that killed Milena Del Valle.

Better read this post to and this post to understand more fully.

New York Attorney Malpractice Blog and others take a look at Derrick Gillenwater v. Jeffrey Denner legal malpractice case.

You can't keep hiding a case like this:

Andrew Lavoot Bluestone Malpractice blog.

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone is an attorney located in Manhattan, New York, concentrating in Legal Malpractice Litigation. He is the author of the New York Attorney Malpractice Blog, and an Outside Counsel Columnist in the New York Law Journal, concentrating in legal malpractice issues.

Andrew graduated from the Syracuse University College of Law, and served as an Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn, Kings County from 1978-1984. After rising to the post of Senior Trial Assistant District Attorney, he entered private practice, and concentrated in complex medical malpractice and catastrophic injury litigation, on both the plaintiff’s and defense side.

For several years now, he has written about Legal Malpractice for the Brooklyn Bar Association, the Defense Association of New York, the Practicing Law Institute, New York State Trial Lawyers Association and LawLine.com. He has lectured for PLI, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, and LawLine.com.

Mr. Bluestone is the recipient of the 2006 Hewlett Packard Legal Technology Innovation Award. His award winning New York Attorney Malpractice Blog can be found at http://blog.bluestonelawfirm.com/

His AVVO ranking is “superb.”

Attorney Bluestone might find it interesting that the Court is not allowing Derrick Gillenwater to file a Motion to Compel regarding the inactions of Attorney Denner and a supervised attorney Richard D. Abbott, in Oscar Atehortua's trafficking case. Abbott was suspended on this his second time of neglect toward a client, and Denner is charged with the duty of knowing about the first time as Abbott rented space from Denner. In Re Abbott. Between the two of them they failed to file an appeal for a guy who sat and rotted away in jail even though there were two different men with his name at his apartment. Time expired, and who knows what happened to Mr. Atehortua, perhaps he died in jail.

Read what I wrote to Attorney Bluestone in the comments section of this post.

Boston Bob joins Coalition of Crime Bloggers.

That's Judge Peter Lauriat. Even though he wrote a book about Massachusetts' Right To Know laws, he and Judge Charles Spurlock are busy violating the United States Constitution against Derrick Gillenwater, vitiating his First Amendment Rights to speak and to file reasonable Motions before the Court. I have noticed that some members of the Coalition of Crime Bloggers have been hosting my comments about this heinous injustice. So as most of the Boston press lacks the chutzpah to run this story I will make sure to it that the members in cyberspace know exactly what's going on with Jeffrey Denner, Derrick Gillenwater, and Judges Peter Lauriat and Charles Spurlock.

Looks like these fellas just changed the color of the robes.

Maybe Attorney Jeffrey Denner was waiting on another Big Dig settlement (this time $16M) before he pays nigger Derrick Gillenwater for malpractice.

Well here you go, another $16M for Jeffrey Denner and his clients, this from Powers Fasteners for the lame epoxy used. Add that to the previous $28M from Bechtel.

Don't get me wrong: I'm happy for Attorney Denner and glad that the Del Valle family has funds to secure good futures for its younger generations and to take care of its elders in the absence of Milena Del Valle. Those Defendants needed to face the music. But when it comes to Justice for Denner's former client Derrick Gillenwater, instead of facing the music Denner got some judges to silence that "nigger" (see this post for the explanation of why I used that ugly word) and then tried to silence this white man by shutting down this blog, which Blogger correctly restored.

The Citizen Media Project over at Harvard's Berkman Law Cener are following this situation closely.

Derrick Gillenwater's unheard pleas for Justice against high-powered lawyer Jeffrey Denner; a dog chasing its tail.

I am a dog lover. And Derrick Gillenwater is going after Jeffrey Denner's proved ineffective assistance of counsel and "alleged" legal malpractice case with dogged determination, and I'll be doggone if he's not getting the royal runaround.

From what I hear through people that we both know, Mr. Gillenwater can't seem to get his Deposition transcript or the transcript from a public hearing where he filed an emergency motion to get his First Amendment Rights back and to file his Motion to Compel and his Motion for Summary Judgment. Naturally there has been no Court movement on it that as far as I can tell by checking the docket, yet the minute Defendant Jeffrey Denner and Defendant Kevin Barron filed a request for an emergency order the Court granted it and stipped that nigger of his Fundamental Rights.

Yes. I said it. The Boston/Massachusetts Court system stripped that nigger of his Fundamental Rights, just as the massuh' did to Kunta Kinte, and just as Charles Stuart and the Boston Police did to countless other niggers when a Good White Man accused some nigger with a raspy voice of killing his wife, Attorney Carol Stuart.

Funny thing: Sometimes the dog will catch his tail. For Mr. Gillenwater's sake, let's hope it happens this time.

PS: Oh, you can't call Derrick Gillenwater a nigger!! As a white man I would agree that I should not say that. No he is not a nigger. He is a strong black man. But yes I can accurately call him a nigger, as long as the Court system, through Judges Peter Lauriat and Charles Spurlock continue to treat him as one.

Hey Denner: Quit trying to find my passwords and hack into my email.

I see I cannot send emails now because someone is no doubt trying to hack in. I get a message noting "suspicious activity on my account," which is no doubt a hacker. Believe me, even if you get in, there's nothing there that will tell you who I am. I'm much smarter than that.

But even if you do "catch me" I don't really care because there's not a damn thing they can do about it to stop me. This is about the First Amendment, and I'm the sharpest shooter in town; I'll blow your head clean off with it. I'll probably stop once I have reason to believe that Derrick Gillenwater's issues have been fairly addressed by the Court and Defendants Denner and Barron, though.

Derrick Gillenwater is another example of how racist (and classist) Boston really is, just like the Charles/Carol Stuart murder.

We've all heard the statistics about how one quarter or more of black men between the ages of 18-25 have been touched by the criminal justice system and all of that. But what portion of these men have actually committed no crime, been set up by the police, received ineffective assistance of counsel from Attorneys like Jeffrey Denner or Kevin Barron (per Judge Diane Moriarty) or received unfair treatment at the hands of the U.S. Judicial system?

Derrick Gillenwater was innocent, no question of that. It was physically impossible for the purported evidence to be at the police station at the hands of the particular lying officer when he said it was. How do we know that? We know that because the other lying officers -- they lied about whether they kicked in the door as they were basically terrorizing Mr. Gillenwater's father -- were still at the house conducting a "search" as the other officer "checked in the evidence." In any event their actions also ran afoul of departmental policies, yet I'm not aware of these officers facing any repercussion.

Similarly, I'm not aware of any repercussions that will befall the Court for stripping Derrick Gillenwater of his Fundamental Rights to file papers in his case, as discussed in the last post. There's been no finding of frivilous pleadings. He has stopped blogging and thereby surrendered his First Amendment Rights.

In sum, it's easy to give black people holy hell in Boston and to accuse them of heinous crimes that they did not commit, and to suspend their basic rights and liberties when the reputation of Good White Folk is at risk.

Just ask Charles Stuart (dead by suicide, the coward), who accused an anonymous black man -- with a raspy voice no less -- of carjacking him and his cute wife and murdering her. The Boston Police proceeded to violate more Civil Rights in the ensuing manhunt than you could shake a Maglite at. At least the Truth came to light in that case, as it should in this one. If only the Judges would stop fighting it. Regarding Stuart's murder of his wife, Carol (ironically, an Attorney)

While investigators continued to seek a full explanation for the murder and hoax that unfairly cast suspicion on a black man, more than 1,000 people converged on Boston City Hall today for a rally intended to begin a process of racial healing.

The rally, which came one day after Mayor Raymond Flynn called for "honest reflection" on the grisly murder of Carol Stuart and its aftermath, attracted blacks and whites, city residents and suburbanites.

"Bigotry, discrimination, alienation have no place in America," said City Councilor Bruce Bolling. "This city will heal because it must heal."

PS: I believe one of the Stuarts involved in the coverup was a Revere Firefighter. Revere has been known for its public service scandals, including the non-punishment of a bunch of police who were out drinking at a schoolhouse at 1:00 in the morning when one of their brethren may have been murdered. White folks with money or badges of authority in Boston can get away with basically anything.

Here's Joe Dwinell's Boston Herald blog post on it. I just wrote him about this case.

Has the Court violated Derrick Gillenwater's Fundamental Rights to Procedural and Substantive Due Process?

Think about this:

At some point Defendants Denner and Barron will hail Derrick Gillenwater in for a Deposition. Then they will likely use the transcript from said Deposition to move for Summary Judgment against Derrick Gillenwater.

Here's the rub:

The Court held that Derrick Gillenwater is not allowed to file his Motion to Compel regarding previous history of ineffective assistance of counsel or other bar or citizen complaints against Attorney Jeffrey Denner. Moreover, he is not allowed to file his Motion for Summary Judgment, which he had prepared weeks if not months ago when I met him.

So now two wealthy (hell, rich) and seasoned attorneys with all of the resources in the World at their beck and call have the playing field further tilted in their favor against a guy with scarce funds, no law degree and precious resources.

The way it appears, the Court might as well just issue a Decision granting Summary Judgment today, with the admonishment,

"Take that, boy.... maybe that'll learn you to challenge the power white establishment in Boston."

Judge Diane Moriarty tried to give Derrick Gillenwater and the Cause of Justice a fair shake. Since then, who knows.

Judge Moriarty did what many Jurists are afraid to do, and for that she has earned the respect of this blogger, and from Mr. Gillenwater as well, I am sure. Since then, Justice packed its bags; took a hiatus.

Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Charles Spurlock speaks on Integrity.

"The integrity of the court is more important than schedules," Spurlock said.

He needs to stand by those words and he needs to allow Derrick Gillenwater the right to do what every man and woman in America has a right to do: Prosecute their lawsuits and publish public documents.

How simple is that? It's as American as Fenway Park. Therefore Your Honor, please don't throw knuckleballs at Justice; leave those pitches to Mr. Wakefield.

Hypocrisy:

Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes. Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in many contexts.

For linguist and social analyst [edit: and Boston's own] Noam Chomsky, hypocrisy, defined as the refusal to "...apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others"[1][2] is one of the central evils of our society--promoting injustices such as war[3][4] and social inequalities in a framework of self-deception, which includes the notion that hypocrisy itself is a necessary or beneficial part of human behavior and society.[5] [6]

In other languages, including French, a hypocrite is one who hides his intentions and true personality. This definition is different from that of the English language.

Judge Lauriat, who is ironically the author of the Massachusetts Right-to-Know guide, fares no better than Judge Spurlock in this regard, as he is the one who initially silenced Mr. Gillenwater. Is it because Gillenwater doesn't have much money or assets to fight? Is it because he is black? Is it because the Judges are protecting their brethren?

Frankly, I don't know and I almost don't care because whatever reason it is, it is not lawful, and that is all we need to know.

John M. Peckham, III vs. Boston Herald, Inc., et al., 48 Mass. App. Ct. 282 (1999) applied to Gillenwater v. Denner, Suffolk 2005-5469.

If the Boston Herald can openly discuss a story about a paternity suit why can't Derrick Gillenwater discuss Jeffrey Denner's proved and unappealed ineffective assistance of counsel as determined by Judge Diane Moriarty?

John M. Peckham was and is a published author and a man of stature in the Boston Community. He was at the time of the Action a leading realtor and the president of at least two real estate brokerages, the Peckham Boston Advisory Company and the Investment Network of America. In 1989, Peckham received the Realtor of the Year award from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board. Besides being a business leader, Peckham was a recognized civic leader, active in "The Ten Club," a social and philanthropic organization composed of persons who, like himself, were former recipients of "The Ten Outstanding Young Leaders Award" given annually by the Greater Boston Junior Chamber of Commerce.

Held: Summary Judgment for Defendant Boston Herald on Invasion of Privacy, Defamation whatever else. There was no Cause of Action against the Boston Herald for openly discussing a matter of public record about a paternity suit against him.

Jeffrey Denner was and is a man of stature in the Boston Community. Apparently these two Boston area Judges (Lauriat and Spurlock) believe there is some sort of Cause of Action against Derrick Gillenwater for openly discussing his proved ineffective assistance of counsel. Even though it cost him his liberty for several months and it is the subject of valid litigation that does not threaten National Security or defame Defendant Jeffrey Denner. As to Peckham shaggin' the secretary:

"Levy confirmed the existence of the action and discussed the details of an affidavit he was preparing to file on Gendron's behalf to support the allegations of her complaint. [Note 3] On January 11, 1990, the Herald published in its daily newspaper the following story as part of Nathan's social/gossip column called "The Eye":

"Oh baby! Business and pleasure just don't mix

"Peckham's bad boy: Bulletin, bulletin, bulletin!

"Bigtime Boston real estate dealer Jack Peckham (that's John M. Peckham 111) 1989 Realtor of the Year and one of the city's 1989 10 Outstanding Young Leaders, has a brand new title: Daddy.

"It's true! It's true!

"Peckham, 56, president of Peckham Boston, has been taken to court on a paternity suit. He's the father of 2-month-old John Richard Gendron, alleges Louise Gendron, who once worked for him."

Summary Judgment for the Herald, but Derrick gets shut down. Something's not right here. At all.

Let's meet Judges Peter Lauriat and Charles Spurlock.

That's rapist Frank Genevieve. We'll get to him in a moment.

Oddly enough, Judge Peter Lauriat co-authored the Massachusetts Right-to-Know Handbook, in 1984 appropriately enough. He is a Harvard Graduate. Why he turned on the Right-to-Know is anyone's guess, but the Citizen Media Law Project is a part of Harvard. It is good to know that they will be following this case regardless of these facts because the law is the law, and nothing else matters.

Charles Spurlock presided over some of the case involving defrocked Priest Paul Shanley, in which he proscribed publication of his victims names. The Boston Herald was not pleased.

Attorney Elizabeth A. Ritvo, who represents the Herald, called prior restraint of the press "the biggest harm to the Constitution, from the First Amendment perspective."

In point of fact, Judge Stephen Neel vacated a portion of Spurlock's order instructing the media to retract the already-published names as soon as possible.

At least the Massachusetts Rape Shield Law arguably provided some arguable reason for the Prior Restraint in Shanley.

What does NOT make any sense is the suspended jail sentence for Frank Genevieve, the Priest who raped 3 young boys.

Let's review the Unconstitutional Court order in Gillenwater v. Denner in further detail.

The Unconstitutional Decision in Gillenwater v. Denner is linked here.

1. It acknowleges that Gillenwater is no longer represented by Counsel then forbids him from contacting opposing counsel. "Gillenwater was further prohibited from having any contact with either Defendant." Well how is he supposed to prosecute his case if he can't contact the Defendants?

2. It also forbid Gillenwater from filing any motions without court permission. "The Plaintiff is further enjoined from filing the Motion for Summary Judgment or any other pleading unless he receives prior permission from the Court." Why not? Has there been a finding that there is anything frivolous in his proposed pleadings? If not, then it is patently Unconsitutional not to let him file. I think if there had been anything frivolous the Court would have identified it. But as there is not, the Court appears to be protecting two wealthy men from a little guy with no money or resources. And that's bullshit. America is a marketplace of ideas, and if we can't get that marketplace in a Court of Law (I know, of all places, right?) then the Judge needs to step down and give the case to someone who is going to be fair and impartial.

3. The purpose of the Court was to protect the Defendants from issuance and dissemination and publication of public facts. "The purpose was to prevent Gillenwater from using any references to the Defendant Jeffrey Denner."

Excuse me, but does anybody see any First Amendment implications here? How can we count the ways? What sort of Judge issues such an edict and then what sort of Judge sustains it?

Judges Lauriat and Charles T. Spurlock, those sort of Judges. One must wonder, how often is this sort of thing happening throughout the Courtrooms of America?

The bigger question is, why?

Addendum:
Judge Peter Lauriat co-authored the Massachusetts Right-to-Know Handbook, in 1984 appropriately enough. He is a Harvard Graduate. The Citizen Media Law Project is a part of Harvard. It is good to know that they will be following this case regardless of these facts because the law is the law, and nothing else matters.

Charles Spurlock presided over some of the case involving defrocked Priest Paul Shanley, in which he proscribed publication of his victims names. The Boston Herald was not pleased.

Attorney Elizabeth A. Ritvo, who represents the Herald, called prior restraint of the press "the biggest harm to the Constitution, from the First Amendment perspective."

In point of fact, Judge Stephen Neel vacated a portion of Spurlock's order instructing the media to retract the already-published names as soon as possible.

At least the Massachusetts Rape Shield Law arguably provided some arguable reason for the Prior Restraint in Shanley.

Who feels lucky? What is at stake in all of this that should promote global settlement?

Plenty. I have settled a lot of cases over the years in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire so I believe I'm qualified to make a few observations here. And seeing as this is the First Amendment, and could blow your heads clean off.....

A. PLAINTIFF DERRICK GILLENWATER
1. Free speech rights.
2. Compensation, refund on payment for substandard legal services.
3. Compensation for months spent incarcerated without Just Cause.
4. Vindication for months spent incarcerated without Just Cause.
5. Closure and the ability to move on with his life.

B. DEFENDANT JEFFREY DENNER
1. Ego.
2. Closure.
3. Reduction of public interest in his mistakes.
4. Slightly higher malpractice premiums.
5. Agreement that Plaintiff Gillenwater never discusses this case.

C. DEFENDANT KEVIN BARRON
1. Ego.
2. Closure.
3. Reduction of public interest in his mistakes.
4. Slightly higher malpractice premiums.
5. Agreement that Plaintiff Gillenwater never discusses this case.

Now you boys come together and play nice. Everyone knows a Good Settlement is one in which everybody feels just a little bit slighted. So Mr. Gillenwater, don't get "greedy" and Defendants Denner and Barron don't get on your high horses. You both know that this is no short money case, so tell your insurance carrier(s) to deal with it. In the alternative, there's no way that you'll get Summary Judgment from any responsible Jurist so you're left with defending your cases before a packed (and it will be packed) courtroom against a lone Plaintiff of sound mind, body and integrity -- or perhaps worse than that -- a Plaintiff with a new lawyer as this case takes hold in the public milieu.

Who feels lucky? Choose wisely.

Jeffrey Denner can't touch me; he'll lose on a Motion to Quash every day of the year.

This post relates to the Citizen Media Law Project's recent coverage of the Jeffrey Denner/Derrick Gillenwater legal malpractice fiasco, in which the court vitiated Plaintiff Gillenwater's First Amendment Rights and Attorney Denner -- an Attorney whom I generally respect -- temporarily got this blog removed. I should sue him but then I would have to go public, when really all I want is to expose what happened and promote resolution between the parties.

Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Blogger. John Doe v. Cahill, Delaware 04C-011-022 (2005).

"Because the trial judge applied a standard insufficiently protective of Doe's First Amendment right to speak anonymously, we reverse that judgment," Chief Justice Myron Steele wrote.

Steele described the Internet as a "unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before," and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. Accordingly, a plaintiff claiming defamation should be required to provide sufficient evidence to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment before a court orders the disclosure of a blogger's identity.

"We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," Steele wrote. "The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all."

Want more? I've got more, yessireebob, as also noted in this Electronic Frontier Foundation story from Joisy. Manalapan v. Moskovitz, Monmouth Cty. L-2893-07.

In a free-speech case that has drawn widespread attention, a New Jersey judge has upheld the right of a blogger to criticize county officials anonymously by telling those officials to take their subpoena seeking the author’s identity and put it where the sun don’t shine.

Judge Terence Flynn in Freehold ruled to quash a subpoena filed by Manalapan Township against Google, seeking the name and account information of the author of the blog — daTruthSquad -- calling the request "an unjust infringement on the blogger's First Amendment rights."

The subpoena is part of an ongoing lawsuit filed in June against Stuart Moskovitz, a former township attorney and mayor. The township contends Moskovitz botched negotiations for a recreational land purchase in 2005. Attorneys for the township believe Moskovitz is the owner of the blog.

That having been said, I haven't even approached any threshold for Defamation, unless Attorney Denner believes he can also sue Judge Moriarty. Good luck on that one. Again, the irritating thing about this is why Attorney Denner can't admit he was wrong, settle with Mr. Gillenwater and move on. Hot damn, he should know the drill by now, after all it's certainly not the first time he's faced a similar issue:

In re Abbott, 437 Mass. 384, 772 N.E.2d 543 (2002). Same inability (read: failure) to monitor the actions of an attorney who worked for him. The attorney Denner was supervising never even filed the man's appeal, and Denner failed to cover for him.

Boston Bob addresses the concerns of Citizen Media Law Project's Sam Bayard, Esq.

Dear Attorney Bayard:

Congratulations on a well-distinguished career, one in which I am certain -- or at least hope -- you've never seen anything quite so absurd.

You wrote:

"....I can't imagine anything that would justify such a sweeping prior restraint on his speech....It looks like the court failed to brush up on some basics of defamation and First Amendment law before issuing its order."

I understand your concerns. To make things clear, all I saw in Mr. Gillenwater's blog were references to Judge Diane Moriarty's Decision, which is copied in full in the JPEGs. There was one thing he said that was not in the public record, and it was a reference to alleged "hush money" he claimed that Denner paid him from time to time. As you deftly point out, that is an issue for Denner to sue over in Defamation but it is not anything over which a court may issue a prior restraint. In sum, give Denner his Day in Court.

But give Derrick Gillenwater his Day in Court as well. A full and fair Day at that.

Food for thought -- Mr. Gillenwater is a music producer and more recently a singer, which is how I overheard him talking about music and his case. To my knowledge he has not written about the specifics of these recent developments, but in his life story song I obtained on a CD, he does reference it. I look forward to a copyright or registration filing so it can hit the Internet, along with his next song about it.

Citizen Media Law Project covers Denner v. Gillenwater/Denner v. Boston Bob/Denner v. First Amendment.

I was searching around waiting for someone to take notice of this heinous situation when I saw this story. And this story as well. I am more spiritual than religious, but all I can say right now is God bless them, for Derrick's sake, for the sake of the First Amendment and for the sake of Justice.

Mystery Blogger Caught Up in First Amendment Flap
Posted December 3rd, 2008 by Sam Bayard

"....I can't imagine anything that would justify such a sweeping prior restraint on his speech....It looks like the court failed to brush up on some basics of defamation and First Amendment law before issuing its order."

Denner v. Boston Bob
Posted December 3rd, 2008 by Sam Bayard

Boston Bob created the blog in mid-October 2008, after apparently meeting Derrick Gillenwater and discussing Gillenwater's malpractice lawsuit against Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron, two Boston lawyers. Gillenwater himself is a blogger, and at the time he also operated a blog dedicated to criticizing Jeffrey Denner and discussing the lawsuit at http://jeffreydenner.blogspot.com.

At around the same time that Boston Bob started his blog, Denner and Barron obtained a restraining order and then a preliminary injunction from a Massachusetts state court prohibiting Gillenwater from blogging about Denner and from filing motions or pleadings without prior permission of the court. For details, see our database entry, Denner v. Gillenwater.

Boston Bob published only three posts before Blogger temporarily removed the blog, all of which related to Gillenwater's lawsuit and alleged malpractice on the part of Denner and Barron. Since the takedown, Boston Bob has published a series of posts criticizing the court's gag order as unconstitutional.

Time for Derrick Gillenwater to file for an Emergency Hearing just like Jeffrey Denner's lawyers did.

If I were Derrick Gillenwater I would play the same game that Jeffrey Denner played on him to circumvent Rule 9A. After all, he's got a good argument and I'm sure the Court will treat him fairly because the Judges would never want to show favoritism for a man of privilege versus a man of modest means. This is, after all, America the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave.

So then:

EMERGENCY MOTION OF PLAINTIFF GILLENWATER TO HAVE THE COURT RESTORE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND TO GRANT HIM PERMISSION TO FILE HIS MOTION TO COMPEL AND HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Now comes Plaintiff to file for an emergency hearing in the exact same way that Ddefendants filed for an emergency hearing earlier in these proceedings, such that Rule 9 Compliance was not required and the Court then heard their argument and terminated my First Amendment Rights to talk about this case.

As noted previously in my Motion to Compel, but thus far kept out of the Court record, I specifically said I am not doing this to vex or to harass the Defendants and I will not publish anything that I cannot legally publish about BBO complaints, but as a Plaintiff I am entitled to know what other legal cases for Malpractice or Breach of Contract or BBO complaints have been filed. I have long since ceased to publish my blog even though I believe that it a clear cut violation of my First Amendment Rights. I will pursue that issue on an Interlocutory Appeal.

The information I seek could even help to form the basis for punitive damages if there is similar conduct. All of that is for me to review and for me to argue and the Defendant cannot withhold this information. In fact, the case: In re Abbott 437 Mass. 384, 772 N.E.2d 543 Mass., 2002 is similar conduct because Defendant Denner failed to adequately supervise another attorney so badly that the man never got his appeal filed.

[More in the comments]

Looks like it's time for an Interlocutory Appeal for Derrick Gillenwater against prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner.

UPDATE:
Actually it's past time. He would have had to file it within 10 days, but given the extraordinary scope of the ruling maybe the Higher Courts would give him a break....

Now if I were Derrick Gillenwater, this is what I would (have) do(ne):

I, Derrick Gillenwater, hereby appeal the Decision of the Lower Court that has stolen my First Amendment Rights and refused to allow me to file a Motion for Summary Judgment or my Motion to Compel evidence regarding Defendant Denner's history of failing to adequately supervise attorneys. See Exhibit 1.

The Single Justice of this Honorable Court may hear this case because of the Doctrine of Present Execution as noted on this website because my Fundamental Rights of Free Speech and to present my case have been interfered with in a way that cannot be remedied on appeal. Without my ability to blog and to discuss my case I cannot find new counsel. My old counsel refused to go after relevant information like the case of In re Abbott 437 Mass. 384, 772 N.E.2d 543 (2002), where Defendant Denner failed to supervise another lawyer working for him and because of that, a man's appeal never got filed and he rotted away in prison after paying Denner more than $9,000.00.

Also, contrary to the Court's Decision, I fired my lawyers, they did not "withdraw from the case." They withdrew after I fired them because they were not aggressively pursuing my case. Now the Court won't allow me to file for Summary Judgment or file a Motion to Compel information that could be used at trial. In addition to removing my Rights to blog about matters already in the public record, my speech has been restricted yet again by not letting me say what I have to say in Court filings.

How far will this go? I am a recording artist. If I write a song about Jeffrey Denner, surely the Court cannot stop me from earning a living? Surely Attorney Denner cannot seek damages against me if I sing about what was held by the Court of Law? My Entertainment/Intellectual Property Lawyers will eat him alive.

The Court's Decision is a form of Un-American activity and as such, pursuant to G.L. c. 231, §118, In re Perry 882 F.2d 534 C.A.1, 1989 and U.S. v. Scarfo, 263 F.3d 80 C.A.3 (N.J.),2001 I seek an immediate appeal from the interlocutory order of the superior, court "granting, continuing modifying, refusing or dissolving a preliminary injunction."

From Scarfo:

This appeal presents an issue of first impression in this circuit pertaining to a lawyer's right to make extrajudicial statements to the press relating to a former client's pending criminal case. The exchange between the defendant's former lawyer and a member of the press resulted in a newspaper article that raised the District Court's indignation. The Court imposed a gag order against Donald F. Manno, defendant's former counsel; Manno appealed. The primary issue on appeal concerns the First Amendment right of speech. Before reaching that issue, we must consider certain procedural matters concerning the appealability of an oral order, the effect on the record of the District Court's addition to it after a notice of appeal is filed, and the collateral order doctrine. Because we hold that we have jurisdiction over an appealable collateral *83 oral order, and that it was error to issue the gag order, it will be reversed.

In America, the law forbids prior restraint against Free Speech.
U.S. v. Mubayyid
2008 WL 919714
D.Mass.,2008.
April 03, 2008
See also Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Toole 463 U.S. 1303, 103 S.Ct. 3524 U.S.,1983.

“It is clear that even a short-lived “gag” order in a case of widespread concern to the community constitutes a substantial prior restraint and causes irreparable injury to First Amendment interests as long as it remains in effect.”

Respectfully submitted,
Derrick Gillenwater

The Unconstitutional Court order that tries to protect prominent Boston Lawyer Jeffrey Denner in a solid legal malpractice case against him.

Here is the Unconstitutional Court Order regarding prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner, even though the Plaintiff is armed with a Court Order from Judge Diane Moriarty (see first post, below) that Denner and co-counsel Kevin Barron's representation fell substantially below acceptable standards and constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Jeffrey Denner has been a great lawyer sometimes and I admire his work. Above, that's a picture that precipitated the $28M Big Dig Settlement for the estate of Milena Del Valle. But when he makes mistakes he hates to admit it and tries to suppress free speech about it even though it is all a matter of public record. Why is the Court supporting this unlawful attack on Derrick Gillenwater's First Amendment and Free Speech Rights?

Keep on smiling, Counselor.

And that's not all. The Judge forbid Mr. Gillenwater from filing a Motion for Summary Judgment or any other motion without court permission.

I re-read the Decision that was sent to me by Blogger in a pdf file. The Court said that Mr. Gillenwater has fired his counsel and is pro se. But then the Court denied Mr. Gillenwater the right to file any pleadings without Court permission.

If Mr. Gillenwater has something to file I would hope he put something in writing and get it to the Court and ask permission. But he should not have to ask permission to work his case. Has he filed or attempted to file anything inappropriate? The Court Decision does not say so. Basically the Court Order is another Unlawful Restraint on Free Speech. It looks for all the World like the Court is trying to protect Mr. Denner from Mr. Gillenwater saying what is already a matter of public record.

Now Mr. Gillenwater cannot blog anything or file anything. And this is actually happening in America?

Here is the Unconstitutional Court Order.

Jeffrey Denner used a bogus Gag Order to strike this blog but I set the record straight.

Thank you. Because of who I am, I must remain anonymous, but I have met Mr. Gillenwater and as you can see I took quite an interest in his plight. Gag orders like the one sent down from this particular Judge are truly Unconstitutional. Best regards,

-Bob from Boston.

Here is the Unconstitutional Court Order.

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Blogger Help wrote:

From: Blogger Help
Subject: Re: [#371356298] Blog removed per court order
To: opencourts@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 7:37 PM

Thank you for letting us know. We will relay this to Mr. Denner and have
restored your blog.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team

Original Message Follows:
------------------------
From: Boston Bob
Subject: Re: [#371356298] Blog removed per court order
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:29:20 -0800 (PST)

The problem is, I'm not Derrick Gillenwater, nor do I operate under his
authority.

I am an independent anonymous person.

Please repost my blog immediately.

Thank you.

--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Blogger Help wrote:

From: Blogger Help
Subject: [#371356298] Blog removed per court order
To: opencourts@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 9:51 PM

Hello,

We'd like to inform you that we've received a court order regarding your blog http://dennerlaw.blogspot.com. In accordance with the terms of the court order, we've been forced to remove your blog. A copy of the court order we received is attached.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team