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.
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.”Order granting New Trial, June 13, 2003. Attachment 1.
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.”
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.