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.......
2 comments:
There is also some discussion about "damages" and Denner's trademark, and blah blah blah.
The problem is, even if there is a trademark violation Denner can't show Damages because everything mentioned is a part of the public record. You live by the sword you die by the sword.
**********
Then Denner's attorney tries to say that Judge Moriarty never found Denner liable for ineffective assistance of counsel "for this and that" he euphemistically calls it -- but that's a fallacious argument because Denner was the supervising attorney to Kevin Barron.
Derrick Gillenwater paid Jeffrey Denner, not Kevin Barron, dammit.
I'm sure Defendant Gillenwater can get a Jury instruction on that.
But then again I was certain that the Court would change its mind on the Unconstitutional Orders it has sent out.
As I say, Derrick Gillenwater is fucked, royally.
Until he gets to the Supreme Court that is.
So now it appears that Denner's lawyer is trying to claim that he is not responsible for the ineffective assistance of counsel?
That will be up to the JURY. Read the Rule right here, keeping in mind that ALL MONIES were paid directly to Denner, and not to Kevin Barron as far as I know.
Denner -- for whom I am losing respect by the day -- needs to quit the crap.
**********
Rule 5.1. Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer
(a) A partner in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if:
(1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or
(2) the lawyer is a partner in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
******
What happens when Plaintiff Gillenwater, on direct examination from the Bench, swears that he complained to Denner about Barron's inefficacy?
The Jury nails both of them, that's what happens.
I say bring it on Mr. Gillenwater, bring it on.
Post a Comment