Tuesday, December 2, 2008

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.

1 comment:

opencourts said...

The Court won't allow Plaintiff Gillenwater to file his Motion for Summary Judgment that starts like this:

Summary Judgment means that it is obvious to a Judge that the Jury would only vote one way, in my favor, after looking at all of the relevant facts. Rule 56. Expert witnesses are not necessary to prove Summary Judgment but in my case expert witness Judge Diane Moriarty already ruled in granting me a New Trial that Defendants Denner and Barron

“Denied the Defendant his right to effective assistance of counsel,” and “Commonwealth’s argument that these failures by counsel are tactical choices is without merit,” and “Therefore Motion for New Trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel is allowed.”
Her Honor also stated:

“The Court finds that due to Attorney Barron’s inattention to the Motion to Suppress both by way of law and argument and not obtaining transcripts or even ordering transcripts of the hearing such inefficiency and behavior falls measurably below what is acceptable.”

Order granting New Trial, June 13, 2003. Attachment 1.