Wednesday, January 28, 2009

A fly on the wall; flies in the ointment in Gillenwater v. Denner, Suffolk 05-5469.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall for whatever is going on with Derrick Gillenwater and Jeffrey Denner/Kevin Barron. All I know is that the law students tell me Mr. Gillenwater is pretty upset about a settlement conference that went down yesterday because there was no mediator present, and he thinks they’re trying to pull a fast one on him. I have no idea if the parties got around to talking numbers or not because the law students tell me that Mr. Gillenwater did not reveal any numbers to them, just that he wished they would actually bring in a licensed mediator and quit the crap. So it looks like he’s trying to behave reasonably even though the Court system and his opponents are not.

Apparently there’s no need for me to call the Court for any updates then (except to find out which ways the next Judge is going to violate Mr. Gillenwater’s Fundamental Due Process and First Amendment Rights), so I’ll just wait for the trial on the merits.

I’m going to say this about what I’ve seen from the Judges in this case:

As I’ve said before, Derrick Gillenwater should appeal to International bodies like Amnesty International and the U.S. Justice Department to open a criminal investigation because what has happened to him is almost tantamount to Judicial racketeering. It’s so disgusting that I have to wonder how these Judges can actually look themselves in the mirror every day – and think about their Oaths of Office -- without vomiting.

Shame on all three of them. Peter Lauriat, Charles Spurlock, and Linda Giles.

I might not be a fly on the wall, but between us -- the law students, Derrick Gillenwater and me -- we sure are flies in the ointment.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

It's a landmark day as Boston Bob's blog tops Google search for Jeffrey Denner.

I figured this would happen, the day when this blog takes over the top spot on a "Jeffrey Denner" Google search. [NOTE: It has just changed back to being at the top but that means it's a very close call].

NOTE: Boston Bob is back on top now, January 27, 2009.

Anyway, I still haven't heard much from the law students lately, and perhaps that is a Good Thing because it means that Derrick Gillenwater is not complaining anymore about Jeffrey Denner himself; only about the Judges. This could mean that one day in the not-too-distant future I will call the Courthouse and I will hear "Sir, that case has been withdrawn by mutual consent of the Parties."

Then I fade away, and Jeffrey Denner's own law firm and other more positive things about his career will eventually rise back to the top, and well they should. He's a great lawyer, overall.

Monday, January 19, 2009

How well will Jeffrey Denner represent Calgary Serb philanthropist Nicholas Djokich, accused of murder conspiracy?

Here's this week's story about Nicholas Djokich, the man who is widely known as a philanthropist, who attempted to construct this beautiful Serbian Church in Calgary.

In October, Mr. Djokich was charged with conspiracy to kidnap for the purpose of extortion and conspiracy to commit murder for hire. He faces a potential sentence of life in prison.

He is accused of hiring a hit man to snatch Richard DeVries, a Calgary lawyer now living in the Bahamas, from his island estate and then force him to turn over millions in lost money before killing him. Mr. Djokich said he lost $175-million in an investment. Jeffrey Denner was quoted as saying
"This is a very sad case. This is a very good man accused of doing a very bad thing and normally you don't have that level of disconnect," said Jeffrey Denner, his Boston lawyer.

"Certainly there is a mental health element to this case. Everything that he held dear was being taken from him and his life was being ruined. This is a man who has lived a very decent life in terms of raising a family, in terms of his livelihood, in terms of the contributions he has made to his community."

We'll see how it pans out. Attorney Denner has done very well most of the time, but sometimes you have an anamoly, as he noted about his new client. And as I noted in this post about Jeffrey Denner, Kevin Barron, Oscar Atehortua, Clark Rockefeller/Karl Gerhartsreiter and Derrick Gillenwater.

When these anomolies pop up, you need to give them your full attention and be fair about their resolution.

The Boston Molasses disaster on Martin Luther King Day reinforces Boston's racism and classism.

Here is a short summary of the Boston Molasses Flood of January 15, 1919, in which a bunch of people died and a lot of property and animals were destroyed.

What a story. Of course must never lose focus of the fact that certain trends the way they were presented back then on money and class are the same issues Martin Luther King was dealing with 50 years later at the time of his untimely demise read: murder -- in this country. Meanwhile today, 40 years after that, Derrick Gillenwater is dealing with the same issues with these hateful Judges who are murdering Justice; denying him basic Due Process and First Amendment Rights with impunity in the legal malpractice case against prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner.
The distillery was brought to court; 119 different suits of damages were brought against them. The United States Alcohol Company claimed no responsibility for the mess. They accused anarchists of blowing up the molasses tank. There were some bomb-throwing anarchists around at that time, but there was no proof to show that any of them tossed an explosive at this particular structure.

Still, the distillery felt confident that they could win the case because most of the twenty-one people who died and most of the people who were suing them were poor people.

See what I mean?

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Boston Courts continued the racist legacy, and someone who would best wear a dunce cap actually wrote in to support it.

The law students tell me that Mr. Gillenwater was quite upset yesterday when he spoke with them because the new Judge (Linda Giles) basically requested that he grant Attorneys Denner and Barron an extension of time in which to file their Motion for Summary Judgment.

From what I understand, there was a heated exchange in which Mr. Gillenwater correctly pointed out that he would not assent to that because he has repeatedly requested the right to file his Motion for Summary Judgment and has continually been denied the right to do that and to file a Motion to Compel regarding the case of Oscar Atehortua. Mr. Atehourtua, if you recall, may have died in prison for all I know, after Defendant Denner and a supervised attorney failed to file any Appellate Brief. Mr. Gillenwater has requested that transcript, just as he properly requested a previous transcript in which another judge issued a bunch of double-talk about why it was okay to vitiate his basic First Amendment Rights and to deny him Due Process. Here is that transcript in which you can read the following:
Mr. Gillenwater:
"I'm ready for trial in February, but can we at least have a hearing on my First Amendment so I can be able to have my blog up? There's nothing in there defamatory, it's what is in the public record that's on my blog and that's allowing me to prepare myself defensively. In an attempt that I have to represent myself I could reach out to different legal schools in the community which I have been doing to prepare me this far."

[Ignored except to the extent that Denner's lawyer and the Court rehashed the old, Unconstitutional standing Court Order.]

Mr. Gillenwater:
"And to keep saying I can't speak about it publicly is clearly taking away my First Amendment right."

The Court: "It wasn't that you couldn't speak about things publicly. It was the way that you were going about it that was the issue the last time we were here."


That having been said, Judge Quills told Plaintiff Gillenwater she didn't really care about his First Amendment Rights. I can't wait to read that transcript.

One interesting thing they told me is that Derrick had nothing bad to say about the lawyers for the Defense. Let's hope that is a good sign that cooler, rational heads are prevailing with them and the insurance carrier(s).


Here is what I told the dummy who wrote in to say in the last post about Boston's racist legacy to say that Plaintiff Gillenwater had a weak case because he had gone through two attorneys.


In fact, I have already explained why:

The first attorney demanded payment for an expert witness, which Derrick didn't have any money for because he wasted it all on Denner and Barron, one of whom -- as you know -- has a prior problem of similar import.

Besides, if you really knew anything about the law of malpractice you would know that an expert is not required in legal malpractice.

The next attorneys were only hired to reopen the case, and not to try the case. I've seen the Agreement.

Go fish.

And oh, yeah:

Labovitz v. Feinberg 47 Mass.App.Ct. 306, 713 N.E.2d 379 Mass.App.Ct.,1999 July 16, 1999 (Approx. 9 pages). That court cites Belford v. McHale Cook & Welch, 648 N.E..2d 1241, 1246 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ("The burdens on postconviction relief petition and a legal malpractice claim are the same.")

That's important, see, because Judge Diane Moriarty already ruled in granting Mr. Gillenwater 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.

Did you catch a minnow yet?

And lastly, none of that would excuse the blatant Civil Rights and First Amendment violations that Harvard-affiliated media lawyers have noted and agreed with me on.

Keep fishing."

-Boston Bob.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Will Boston continue a racist legacy at today's hearing or will Derrick Gillenwater prevail against the built in headwinds of unlawful discrimination?

I almost forgot until my Outlook reminder chimed in this morning, but the Court imformed me a couple of weeks ago that there is a litigation management conference scheduled for today in Derrick Gillenwater v. Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron, Suffolk 05-5469. I don't know what's been going on lately except last week the law students with whom I've spoken told me that Mr. Gillenwater has not heard anything from anybody about anything. Business as usual, I guess.

Here's the racist legacy as applied to Derrick Gillenwater.

Here's Griggs v. Duke Power Co. That's Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in the picture. I'll make no comparisons between him and the judges who have presided over this case.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Will Clark Rockefeller/Karl Gerhartsreiter be comfortable with Jeffrey Denner as counsel now that he knows of Oscar Atehortua & Derrick Gillenwater?

Oscar Atehortua: Failure.
Derrick Gillenwater: Failure.
Clark Rockefeller: Will history repeat itself, or will the third time be the charm? Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusions.

Meanwhile, here's more on Clark Rockefeller, and more on Derrick Gillenwater. Let's just say that Attorney Denner and client Rockefeller both appear a little tight-lipped in this recent photo. If I had to caption it, I would call it "Consternation."

If I had to caption the cases of Oscar Atehortua and Derrick Gillenwater it would read "Rape."

Monday, January 5, 2009

Derrick Gillenwater is entitled to know if Oscar Atehortua sued Jeffrey Denner relative to In re Abbott, BD 2001-045.

In re Abbott, BD 2001-045.

That's the case in which Jeffrey Denner was supervising attorney to Richard D. Abbott, a lawyer with a history of neglect of clients. While Denner eventually removed himself from the case, it was not until well into the case and well after he and Abbott had received at least $9,000.00 from Atehortua, who was rotting in jail on a drug rap even as there were identity problems in the arrest, including the fact that there was another Oscar Atehortua living in the SAME BUILDING.

Anyway, the simple fact is that neither Jeffrey Denner or Richard Abbott ever filed in Appellate Brief within the timeframe allotted by Rule. So as I've stated, I don't know if Oscar Atehortua rotted away in prison or what happened to him, but I can definitively state that he had a damn good lawsuit against Richard Abbott, and by natural extension, Jeffrey Denner.

Obviously Derrick Gillenwater is entitled to this information as to whether a lawsuit was filed and whether a settlement was reached and the amount of the settlement, both as a litigant and as a paying (+$50K) client of Jeffrey Denner.

The amount of the Settlement, if any, may of course be subject to Protective Order.


Saturday, January 3, 2009

A simple reminder from Boston Bob on Derrick Gillenwater v. Jeffrey Denner et al., Suffolk 05-5469.

I'm not the Bad Guy here. Derrick Gillenwater is not the Bad Guy here. Attorneys Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron are not even Bad Guys. They just made some mistakes for which they have to pay. The Court, arguably, is the Bad Guy for issuing clearly Unconstitutional prior restraints on Plaintiff Gillenwater's First Amendment Rights as far as blogging, open communication and dissemination of information already in the public record. In re Abbott, BD 2001-045.

The bigger issue and question is how many Derrick Gillenwaters are hiding out there in Plain View of our United States system of Justice?

As I wrote in an email to one of the media identified in yesterday's post:

People have a civic responsibility to go after injustice in this World.

Happy New Year to all,

-Boston Bob.

Friday, January 2, 2009

Boston Bob identifies local media following the case of Gillenwater v. Denner, Suffolk 05-5469.

Boston Herald:
New England News:
Jimmy Myers:
Weekly Dig:
NY Attorney Malpractice Blog.
Citizen Media Law Project.

By way of background, the CMLP is out of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School and they opined that outstanding gag orders on Derrick Gillenwater, in Gillenwater v. Denner, Suffolk 05-5469 are Unconstitutional. Joe D. wrote about Injustice in Boston relative to Charles/Carol/Baby Stuart murders as linked here. Jimmy Myers interviewed Jeffrey Denner in this December 21 segment pertaining to Clark Rockefeller/Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter.

I haven't commenced any formal media campaign for this case yet as I wait to see whether it is actually going to trial, but it is interesting to look through somme of the emails. The most interesting is the exchange with the Weekly Dig, which truly has me scratching my head and has others telling me it was a plant from Jeffrey Denner:

From: Cara Bayles
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Denner gets blog removed per bogus court order
To: ""
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 9:40 PM


I might be interested in covering this. Can I get your full name?

Cara Bayles

News and Features Editor

Boston's Weekly Dig
242 E. Berkeley Street, 2nd Floor
Boston, MA , 02118
(617).426.8942 x227

My response: Hi Cara, I can't say who I am. I hope that doesn't destroy your story, but I really cannot say who I am. Maybe at some point down the road, but not now. I'll give you an interview too, but I cannot divulge my identity.

-Boston Bob.


Meanwhile, Plaintiff Gillenwater's First Amendment Rights to blog, to speak publicly about his case and even to file basic and necessary court motions -- a Motion to Compel and a Motion for Summary Judgment -- are being denied by the Court, which is amazing because there is no finding that Derrick Gillenwater has ever filed anything frivolous. I think he should go complain to the U.S. Justice Department about this. Take a look at this transcript.**********
Mr. Gillenwater:
"I'm ready for trial in February, but can we at least have a hearing on my First Amendment so I can be able to have my blog up? There's nothing in there defamatory, it's what is in the public record that's on my blog and that's allowing me to prepare myself defensively. In an attempt that I have to represent myself I could reach out to different legal schools in the community which I have been doing to prepare me this far."

[Ignored except to the extent that Denner's lawyer and the Court rehashed the old, Unconstitutional standing Court Order.]

Mr. Gillenwater:
"And to keep saying I can't speak about it publicly is clearly taking away my First Amendment right."

The Court: "It wasn't that you couldn't speak about things publicly. It was the way that you were going about it that was the issue the last time we were here."