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.
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