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
1 comment:
The Court won't let Plaintiff Gillenwater file his Motion for Summary Judgment that started like this:
I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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.
Post a Comment