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.


Anonymous said...

Derrick has gone through two attorneys already by the time of this hearing. And attorneys don't just withdraw from cases. Consider that his claim is a bad one.

opencourts said...


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 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.