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]
1 comment:
Again, much of the substance of my Motion to Compel, which was properly served per Rule 9A is as follows:
“Abbott was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth on January 12, 1983, and from 1983 to 1995 worked as a sole *387 practitioner with a concentration in criminal appellate work.FN3 Between 1990 and 1991 Abbott rented space from Attorney Jeffrey Denner in his Newton office and occasionally performed work for Denner as an independent contractor. On or about March 23, 1991, Atehortua retained Denner to represent him in an appeal from his conviction of trafficking in cocaine. Denner was to be paid $9,000 to review the transcript and materials related to Atehortua's trial and evaluate whether there were any issues worthy of appeal. Denner would then be paid an additional $9,000 for preparing the appeal if meritorious issues were found.
When Abbott informed Denner of Atehortua's complaints sometime shortly thereafter, Denner, who was anxious to be relieved of the case, suggested that Abbott take over the case and file an appellate brief on behalf of the client in exchange for the $9,000 promised for the appeal.
On May 6, 1992, Abbott wrote to Atehortua on “Denner & Associates” letterhead and informed him that the appellate brief “would be a joint product” of Denner and himself. Abbott signed the letter and forged, or caused to be forged, Denner's signature at the bottom of the letter.”
But Denner already knew of Abott’s propensity for malpractice. But he didn’t care, just like he didn’t care about me in this case when I told him that Attorney Barron wasn’t up to the job and that he was wrecking my case. This is a quote from the Court in Abbott:
FN2. Abbott had been previously admonished by the Board of Bar Overseers (board) for similar unprofessional misconduct in 1989 when his failure to file an appellate brief in a deportation matter caused his client's appeal to be dismissed. This conduct violated S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Canon 2, DR 2-110(A)(2), as appearing in 411 Mass. 1318 (1992), and S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Canon 6, DR 6-101(A)(2) & (3), as appearing in 382 Mass. 783 (1981), and was considered as an aggravating factor in the board's recommendation of discipline in the current matter.
That’s straight from the case, and it could certainly be a part of the trial, but Defendant Denner has refused to provide it to my prior counsel, and my prior counsel refused to ask for it. As such, I am clearly entitled to know of every BBO and Court Complaint against Defendant Denner in his professional capacity as a lawyer.
I have more, from the Appellate Brief filed by the BBO at 2004 WL 3729423:
Between December 1992 and April 1994, the respondent had the responsibility of filing status reports on a monthly basis with the Appeals Court pursuant to the strategy of seeking stays until the motion for new trial was decided. (S.A. 120) Almost from the outset, the respondent failed to file timely *10 status reports. (S.A. 120) Consequently, the Appeals Court issued notices of dismissal in April, June, July and November 1993 and in April and June 1994. (S.A. 120)
Attorney Denner was still co-counsel of record on the appeal. Each time Attorney Denner received a notice of dismissal, he contacted the respondent and urged him to have the dismissal vacated. (S.A. 120) The respondent did so until the Appeals Court sent a notice of dismissal on June 29, 1994. By this time, Attorney Denner had withdrawn his appearance and did not receive a notice of dismissal or contact the respondent, and the respondent neither filed a late status report nor requested a further stay. (S.A. 120)
That’s just like Kevin Barron and Jeffrey Denner not filing a Motion for Reconsideration. All of this is relevant to my case. Was there a lawsuit and/or BBO Complaint against Denner? All of this is unfair to me and my case.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT OR SUA SPONTE RULING
I am trying to prosecute my case. I have temporarily surrendered all of my First Amendment Free Speech Rights to the extent that I cannot even file reasonable Motions with the Court. There is nothing in my Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Motion to Compel that is unreasonable. As such, I respectfully ask that the Court immediately grant me the right to file my Motions, sua sponte.
Respectfully submitted,
Derrick Gillenwater
Post a Comment