Jeffrey Denner victim Derrick Gillenwater to rally up with Touch FM 106.1 in their Walk for Power demonstration Monday, March 2, 2009.

Note: Postponed due to snow storm. In two short days, folks will be passing hundreds of fliers at the Touch FM 106.1 Walk for Power rally.

The Walk for Power, led by Charles Clemons, is meant to make plain black media owners’ plight and the African American community’s need to control and manage vehicles of information and education....

The station is already starting to track his autobiographic song "Da Mack is what they call me," (myspace.com/buckshotdamack) about power, corruption and lies and how prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron got Mr. Gillenwater's First Amendment Rights to blog about his legal malpractice case against them taken away. He went to jail for no good reason, ordered Judge Diane Moriarty. Then they also got some morally vacant judges to strip away his rights to even file legal pleadings in the case. It sounds outlandish but it's true.

Defendant Jeffrey Denner, a white "Civil Rights" lawyer who has made tons of money from black folks and other minorities over the years, is the benefactor of these classist and racist court rulings that are all held on this blog.

Denner also claimed to have knowledge of Diane Wilkerson's pending investigation before it went public, and he used it against Mr. Gillenwater to threaten him. Jeffrey Denner also got this blog taken down until I forced the issue and Blogger restored it. The folks at Harvard Law School's "Citizen Media Project" have this to say (click on last link).

For background read this post about the first Unconstitutional Order, and this post about the gag orders on Gillenwater and Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner -- after the government made his case a public issue IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Boston is a racist town. Remember how the authorities treated allblackmen in the Carol Stuart murder "investigation?"

PS: No disrespect to local radio legend Lovell Dyett, but it just occurred to me as kind of an afterthought that his situation is directly related. Another black man of above-average intelligence, trying to assert himself in a manner that may challenge Boston's largely white power structure is effectively silenced after he and a younger white co-worker were temporarily released and called back. On return to work, his white counterpart was called back in a nice cherry time slot but he got the proverbial graveyard shift and at -- get this -- one sixth the airtime. Read the February 10 Boston Globe story and the February 26 Boston Banner story (sorry, that story I cannot find online. I used the February 5 story instead).

Let's review the original Unconstitutional Order from Judge Peter Lauriat in Gillenwater v. Denner, 05-5469.

NOTE: See how in the ruling that Mr. Gillenwater requested insurance carrier information? He's entitled to that BY LAW to file a 93A claim, but he still doesn't have it and the Court doesn't give a damn, the Court just wants Mr. Gillenwater -- and me I'm sure -- to shut up. That's not going to happen.

The law students reminded me that I have not actually posted the original Unconstitutional Order of October 10, 2008 from Judge Peter Lauriat. Well here it is, posted in the same fashion that I posted the January 13, 2009 transcript page from Judge Linda Giles still reinforcing the Unconstitutionality of all of this. Remember that Judge Lauriat is the author of a (1984 appropriately enough) Right-to-Know treatise "The Massachusetts Right to Know Law Handbook" published right here in Massachusetts. Unbelievable.

Meanwhile you may review the October 21 Unconstitutional Order from Judge Charles Spurlock affirming the first Unconstitutional Order right here.

The Question the law students and I keep getting is: "On what basis did the Court initially restrict Plaintiff Gillenwater's First Amendment and Fundamental Rights?"

The Answer I keep giving is: "There was no lawful basis for so doing on the speech issue, and on the filing restrictions there has never been a finding that Mr. Gillenwater filed any frivolous pleadings. The rulings are patently Unconstitutional and that's why the Court of Appeals full panel is still sitting on Mr. Gillenwater's appeal from the single Justice in 2009-J-58.... which Judge Giles has still failed to act on."

Related:
In depth analysis of the Spurlock Order.
Let's meet Judges Lauriat and Spurlock.
The Single Justice (non)ruling of February 5. Note that it doesn't even have the correct date for Judge Spurlock's Unconstitutional Order as it references an Order of October 23. That's because nothing is right about this classist, racist case, as succinctly noted in yesterday's post, with links to Plaintiff Gillenwater's activist video and music pages.

Derrick Gillenwater to speak with Boston Councilor Chuck Turner, ACLU about gag order in Gillenwater v. Denner, 05-5469.

The ACLU knows that the gag order against Councilman Turner is Unconstitutional. Read this story. The ACLU will also know by tomorrow (some of their members know today) that the gag order against Derrick Gillenwater is Unconstitutional as well.

Whether Jeffrey Denner had any input on the proposed Turner gag order as he claims to have had input on the Diane Wilkerson prosecution is yet to be seen. Read this post.

To see Judge Diane Moriarty's original decision finding ineffective assistance of counsel for several reasons read this post.

To see the Jeffrey Denner/Richard Abbott scandal that took Abbott's license to practice law for 2+ years because of ineffective assistance of counsel and lying to the BBO read this post.

To see Mr. Gillenwater's music page with activist video on this, and to see the Gillenwater gag order explained in one page of recent court transcript, read this post.

To see Mr. Gillenwater's liner notes read this post.

To see that Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Project considers the Denner-requested gag order on Derrick Gillenwater, preventing him from simply posting public information and blogging IN A CIVIL CASE Unconstitutional read their blog, specifically the last link on this main page.

Get this:

“This is not a gag order,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney John McNeil.

McNeil said the protective order he is seeking would simply prevent information the government releases to Turner’s lawyers from becoming public before trial.

Huh? What? To read similarly-insipid comments from Judges in Mr. Gillenwater's well-grounded legal malpractice case against prominent, wealthy and white Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner read the November, 2008 transcript from Judge Spurlock.

Then read the January, 2009 transcript from Judge Giles.

Then cry about how pathetic this Country has become. I guess a black man in Boston can't speak his mind when it comes down to facing a powerful, largely white establishment. Remember how they treated allblackmen in the Carol Stuart murder "investigation."

And look at the racist comments in both of the Chuck Turner stories as linked above. Here's a good one:

You would need a watermelon and a roll of duct tape to keep that huge mouth quiet. Can't they just sentence this clown and get it over with so he can start right letter from prison?

Watermelon, huh. How original. Dean Grose, a hater Mayor in Los Alamitos California just lost his job for that. Can't they just lock you up and sentence your stupid hateful ass for being a racist clown bigot?

By the way, the case the ACLU should be running is State v. Carmichael, 326 F.Supp.2d 1267 (M.D.Ala. 2004).

Maybe Project Hip Hop will understand why Derrick Gillenwater cannot even respond to Jeffrey Denner's Motion for Summary Judgment: He's not allowed!

Think about this: Derrick Gillenwater, as clearly seen in yesterday's post with Attorney James S. Dilday and the relevant transcript pages from Mr. Gillenwater's legal malpractice case against prominent, wealthy and white Boston "Civil Rights" Attorney Jeffrey Denner, is still not permitted to file anything in court. This is so, even though there is no finding that he ever filed anything frivolous.

When he did properly file for permission to file, it was ignored. He can't blog, he can't file, he can't do anything but get beat down. And he can't adequately respond to Denner's Motion without his discovery regarding other cases in which Denner was involved, such as the Oscar Atehortua scandal BD 2001-045 where Denner's buddy lost his license (suspension) for 2+ years. Folks, you can't get any more obvious than that. What a joke. What a crying shame, the shame of Boston it is.

Here is the Project Hip Hop website.

Here are links to Plaintiff Gillenwater's Music Page, with an activist video about this situation.

Here are Derrick Gillenwater's phenomenal liner notes.

Gillenwater v. Denner, 05-5469 with Judge Linda Giles: They apparently have transcripts in Hell. Here's the proof.

Dear Jeffrey Denner:
When your buddy James S. Dilday gave Derrick Gillenwater the legal opinion authored by Judge Diane Moriarty (the court kept telling Mr. Gillenwater they couldn't find it) he said "handle your business."

Well he certainly is. So you just keep on handling yours (which apparently includes oversight of people like Diane Wilkerson as noted yesterday) and Mr. Gillenwater, the law students and I will continue to handle ours.

Oh, wait, I know. You're not a racist. Some of your best friends are black. Some of them are even tenured professors in criminal justice. Be that as it may, Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project called this situation "Likely Unconstitutional." (It should be the last link on the page but it's not working now for some reason. Denner is a Harvard Graduate, coincidentally I'm certain it's just a technical glitch at the moment).

Now then, Judge Giles should recuse herself for her ignorant and biased comments seen at page 8, given the law on legal malpractice in this milieu:

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.")
**********
Suggested reading: John M. Peckham v. Boston Herald, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 282 (1999) applied to Gillenwater v. Denner, Suffolk 2005-5469. Read also the Unconstitutional Order holding "The purpose was to prevent Gillenwater from using any references to the Defendant Jeffrey Denner."

What? Huh? Why? The Court can't do things like that in America, and for Jeffrey Denner to accept it and to be a benefactor of this sort of clearly unlawful activity that deprives a man of basic First Amendment and other Fundamental Rights makes him a total bigot in this instance, my previous respect for him dying by the minute.

Derrick Gillenwater says Jeffrey Denner might as well be a racist oppressor for his comment about Diane Wilkerson, "Who's gonna help you, kid..."

UPDATE: Here is the January 13, 2009 Transcript.

Fact: Derrick Gillenwater is suffering under Unconstitutional Court rulings and a very powerful attorney trying to defend a well-pled legal malpractice case, but he will testify Under Oath that prominent, wealthy Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner looked him right in the eye weeks before any of Diane Wilkerson's alleged criminal activity took place -- but well after he was aware of Mr. Gillenwater's 2005 legal malpractice lawsuit against him and Kevin Barron -- and said:

"Who's gonna' help you kid? Diane Wilkerson? I've already got her on tape."

Anybody think Mr. Gillenwater is lying? I don't. But the question is who the hell is Jeffrey Denner to say something like that? How much power does this guy really have? He acts like he owns the World. So it's no wonder Jeffrey Denner looks so smug in the "I'm not a racist" post. He may not be a racist but he sure is a power monger who hates to admit he's wrong, and he gets judges in his pocket to do whatever he wants, Unconstitutional or not. Wait for me to post the ridiculous transcript from Judge Linda Giles' courtroom tomorrow. Update, here it is. Mr. Gillenwater and a law student dropped a copy with City Council this afternoon. Here is the last ridiculous transcript from Judge Spurlock.

I'll say this: Councilor Yancey and Yoon and soon the entire City Council and Mayoral Candidates will be reviewing this matter at the behest of a certain local pastor. Now let's see how smug Mr. Denner and the Court system are in light of the liner notes and the transcript I'm reading right now. Here are the liner notes on the overleaf, and here are the links to Derrick Gillenwater's wonderful music and video, Including a song about this very situation.

In the overleaf you will see why I hope Mr. Gillenwater gets Justice and his pound of flesh.

Here come the liner notes from Derrick Gillenwater's CD; they are amazing.

Well let me qualify that: I believe they are going to be amazing. I'm sorry to tease you with something I'm not permitted to share yet, but I'm hoping that I can share these with you later today or at least by the end of the week. All the law students will tell me is that Mr. Gillenwater mentions that he "did not get his money's worth" with prominent and wealthy Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron. Also, he offered to work with them in some sort of gentlemen's fashion if they would "wake up and do the right thing," but they have refused. Apparently they disagree with Judge Moriarty's decision finding that they provided ineffective assistance of counsel, which is legally tantamount to legal malpractice.

Funny thing, though, neither Defendant ever appealed that order so it's kind of res judicata, claim or issue preclusion, something like that.

I'm getting curiouser and curiouser. Here is Mr. Gillenwater's MySpace and related YouTube video, in which legal malpractice Defendant Jeffrey Denner appears.

Meanwhile people in Boston's church community are offering to help. That is all I will say at this point until a meeting is scheduled with said persons and people in government.

Pack your bags and strap yourself on in, Jeffrey Denner: You and Derrick Gillenwater are taking a trip to Asia.

First off, there is an interesting comment at the good old boy network post showing the lame Court of Appeals Order that intentionally did not mention Mr. Gillenwater's First Amendment or Fundamental Rights claims.

Next, here's where you can experience a YouTube music video that addresses Derrick Gillenwater being hosed by the court system and his former lawyer, Jeffrey Denner.

Now then, I told you in a post just the other day that I was about to start taking a more proactive approach in this matter. Well I made my first move last night, and in the next week or so we can expect that people all over the Asian Continent will hear about the First Amendment/Fundamental Rights deprivations suffered by Derrick Gillenwater at the hands of wealthy white people like his former lawyer and the current legal system in Boston.

Then people in Asia -- and I mean A LOT OF PEOPLE IN ASIA will really see how American Justice operates. I'm not going to tell you who or what it is, but it's major. Anyway, take a look at the injustice. Want more? You got it:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/mystery-blogger-caught-first-amendment-flap

http://dennerlaw.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-christmas-for-cause-of-justice.html

http://dennerlaw.blogspot.com/2008/12/lets-review-unconstitutional-court.html

http://dennerlaw.blogspot.com/2009/02/derrick-gillenwater-goes-head-to-head.html

Hallelujah, Sweet Mother of Jesus, Derrick Gillenwater is going to get his transcript from Judge Linda Giles in Gillenwater v. Denner, 05-5469.

In the last post I wrote "I wonder what Mr. Gillenwater's next video will be, after he obtains a copy of the unlawfully-withheld transcript from Judge Linda Giles' January "Litigation Control Conference." This is a simple and basic Human Right in America, a copy of your courtroom transcript for Christ's Sake."

Well through Divine Intervention or something -- perhaps a couple of well-placed phone calls from me to the Court Administration director today -- I hear that Mr. Gillenwater is now scheduled to receive the transcript next week. Let's hope it's not Friday at 4:59 p.m. I also wrote to my mailing list and told them I am about to start taking a much more proactive approach to this case, and the information contained on this blog will be appearing in places that the Defendants fear the most.

Key passages will include the heated exchange between Mr. Gillenwater and Judge Giles when she allegedly berates him about what a Summary Judgment is (he seems to know damn well what it is) then allegedly tells him he has to ask another judge for permission to get her transcript, then allegedly tells him the other judges are under no duty to respond to his requests for basic First Amendment Fundamental Rights to file pleadings.

From what I hear -- but which will not be registered on the record -- there was an awesome collective gasp from the courtroom when Mr. Gillenwater respectfully asked for the transcript.

"What do you want that for?" Judge Giles eventually stammered.

Well now she knows.

Derrick Gillenwater goes head to head with Jeffrey Denner and First Amendment with YouTube video.

I like this kid. After trying to make his life right and do all things legal, his lawyers and the court screw him like there's no tomorrow. So now -- legally -- he just dares Jeffrey Denner to go get another morally bankrupt Judge to get an Order preventing him from posting his autobiographical song "The Mack is what they call me" on his MySpace (http://www.myspace.com/buckshotdamack) and in this rather interesting YouTube video/picture slide, courtesy of traedaddious. Jeffrey Denner makes an appearance in the video (via a fair use/public domain image), noted producer Gene Griffin does the same, and there is a nice shot of surveillance cameras with the tag line "Big Brother Wants Your Civil Liberties."

Now as you recall, and as Harvard Law's Citizen Media Law Project pointed out, prominent and wealthy Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner is benefactor to Unlawful and Unconstitutional Orders from local judges who tried to take away my rights to blog but I smacked that down. However, they did take away Mr. Gillenwater's First Amendment and Fundamental Rights to blog about the valid legal malpractice case using public documents, or even to file basic briefs and motions. U.S. Attorney Eric Holder is not going to appreciate that.

I wonder what Mr. Gillenwater's next video will be, after he obtains a copy of the unlawfully-withheld transcript from Judge Linda Giles' January "Litigation Control Conference." This is a simple and basic Human Right in America, a copy of your courtroom transcript for Christ's Sake.

"Litigation Control" is the polite and euphemistic way to put it, however truthfully it is more akin to Castration.

PS: Who is Joanne Cavallaro? I have no idea if her case had any merit, but her accusations are interesting: 11/13/2002 #6 Request for Investigation into Mr. Denner's Actions and those of the Court to see if there has been a conspiracy to violate my civil rights and to cover up for the police, filed by Joanne Cavallaro with Certificate of Service.

Derrick Gillenwater to face off against Jeffrey Denner and other wealthy white people before U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Some time ago I wrote about Eric Holder -- America's first black Attorney General -- and suggested that this horrific case reach his desk. Well the law students inform me that they are preparing an extensive document for him; all they are waiting on is a certain transcript from Judge Linda Giles' chambers.

The reason is that Holder, according to his own mouth and by other news accounts including the Chicago Tribune, "Signals a more active Justice Department of Civil Rights issues." Holder said:

"We, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race,'' said Holder, urging people of all races to use Black History Month as a platform for honest discussion of racial matters, including disparities in health care, education and income.

"If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us,'' Holder told hundreds of Justice employees, suggesting that, while blacks and whites are integrated in many quarters, they still are segregated in their free time in "race-protected cocoons.''

Look at this case, and remember that there has been no finding of any frivolous conduct on the part of Mr. Gillenwater, who is attempting to fight his valid legal malpractice case pro se against some very wealthy white people, who are being protected by some very wealthy white judges, while everyone in Boston -- except for some activity by Harvard's Citizen Media Law Project -- turns a blind eye.

Judge Spurlock lied and said he could not refer this case to the BBO.
Mr. Gillenwater has no right to blog.
Mr. Gillenwater has no right to file any Motions.
Mr. Gillenwater has no right to request a real mediator.
Mr. Gillenwater cannot discover the name of the insurance carrier to file a 93A Demand, nor can he discover anything about Defendant Denner's history of any ethics or malpractice cases, including the one involving Oscar Atehortua, in which Denner's colleague in the case received a 2+ year suspension from practice for neglect. See BD 2001-045.
Mr. Gillenwater cannot receive a copy of the transcript he has been seeking in which Judge Linda Giles allegedly said some very prejudicial remarks about the merit of his underlying case, even though she hasn't seen any Motion for Summary Judgment, and even though the law on Summary Judgment in Massachusetts on these cases holds that the standards for post conviction relief and legal malpractice are basically the same:

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.")
**********
Suggested reading: John M. Peckham v. Boston Herald, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 282 (1999) applied to Gillenwater v. Denner, Suffolk 2005-5469. Read also the Unconstitutional Order holding "The purpose was to prevent Gillenwater from using any references to the Defendant Jeffrey Denner."

What? Huh? Why? The Court can't do things like that in America, and for Jeffrey Denner to accept it and to be a benefactor of this sort of clearly unlawful activity that deprives a man of basic First Amendment and other Fundamental Rights makes him a total bigot in this instance, my previous respect for him dying by the minute.

Where is Derrick Gillenwater's January transcript before Judge Linda Giles in Gillenwater v. Denner et al, Suffolk 05-5469?

Ever since Judge Diane Moriarty (above) tried to give Justice a fair shake in Derrick Gillenwater's criminal case that preceded his valid Legal Malpractice claim against Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron (Suffolk 05-5469), things have not gone fairly for him. This has been noted by the Harvard Law School Berkman Center's Citizen Media Law Project. They wrote that basic court orders were Unconstitutional because of Prior Restraint concerns as levied against Plaintiff Gillenwater for no lawful reason.

I wonder what it does for the morale over at Denner-Pellegrino to know that their boss is benefactor of this unfair system that has taken away one of their former client's basic First Amendment Rights to file pleadings and to blog about or even discuss his case publicly. They probably just don't give a damn, just keep the shareholders happy and try to keep Mr. Gillenwater beat down.

Anyway, I want to know what's going on with that transcript from a January hearing he had with Judge Linda Giles. I got an email a while back from the law students where Mr. Gillenwater had claimed she even told him he needed permission from another judge to get a transcript from her own courtroom after she allegedly made biased statements to Mr. Gillenwater. Read about that here.

Now all of that is going to get even more interesting because I just received a link to Mr. Gillenwater's MySpace music page, and his material is quite good. The title track "Da Mack is what they call me" is in fact autobiographical and speaks about this case. I understand there is going to be a set of liner notes and some other multimedia program about all of this but I do not know if I will get access to more information on any of that before the CD comes out.

I wonder, will Attorney Denner actually have the nerve to move for an Emergency Restraining Order to silence his speech on that too, like the one he got against Mr. Gillenwater in the court before Judge Lauriat, as unlawfully upheld by Judge Spurlock as noted in this post (read the transcript of the Spurlock hearing; it's an insult to contemporary sensibilities on Justice). Coincidentally Denner met with Judge Lauriat yesterday in matters related to the Clark Rockefeller/Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter post.

Judge Lauriat and Judge Spurlock and Judge Giles have all violated Derrick Gillenwater's Fundamental and First Amendment Rights, and frankly I hope he exposes all of it through his music and whatever other channels he can use.

Clark Rockefeller/Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter may be insane, but what is Jeffrey Denner's excuse for his treatment of Derrick Gillenwater?

Prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner -- who is busy benefitting from all measure of Unconstitutional, classist and racist rulings made to thwart Derrick Gillenwater in his valid legal malpractice case against him -- made a bold but somewhat foreseeable move today in noticing his intent to use temporary insanity as an Affirmative Defense. As noted recently, the plea arrangement fell though so this is the chance for Attorney Denner to show that he and his posse are better lawyers than they were in the Gillenwater and Oscar Atehortua cases. I wonder if Jeffrey Denner will try to take down Derrick Gillenwater's MySpace music blog that I just got where he actually has written a song where he describes the scenario in "The Mack is what they call me." It's a good song. This guy can write music that's for certain.

Anyway on "Clark", let's just say that after all, looking at this guy, I think a first year law student could establish that he's got a serious mental defect. And I mean SERIOUS.

Would you let your daughter date this guy? Only if you disowned her, and canceled your life insurance policy, he-heh. Here is today's AP Story.

Jeffrey Denner might have a better chance of shutting down this blog if I called him a lying, whoring skank like Liskula Gentile Cohen.

Now I'm not actually saying that Liskula Cohen (or Jeffrey Denner) is indeed a skank or a ho, but as I understand it her lawsuit against an anonymous blogger is on very thin ground, in fact because she has apparently referred to herself "ho" on the friendster social network. Here's the girl in short shorts blog entry, and here is the Citizen Media Law Project blog entry (out of Harvard Law's Berkman Center) and analysis.

Anyway, I like the Citizen Media blog folks because they know what the hell they are talking about, and they know that the decisions that have been handed down against Derrick Gillenwater in his case against Jeffrey Denner are Unconstitutional, as noted in this entry. Again, the courts have protected powerful Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner by not allowing Mr. Gillenwater to publicly speak, blog about, or to file any motions whatsoever in his legally valid claim of legal malpractice against Denner. These are basic, inalienable First Amendment and Human Rights that must be protected in a free society. There has been no finding of fact or law that Mr. Gillenwater has issued any frivolous pleadings so there is no basis for the Court to issue such a broad-sweeping First Amendment Prior Restraint against him.

Then, sadly, Judge Linda Giles affirmed those orders but refused to put it in writing, and even told Plaintiff Gillenwater he had to seek permission from some previous Judges in order to get a copy of the transcript from her courtroom, in which she also showed her bias against Mr. Gillenwater by stating that she didn't think his case had merit so he shouldn't worry about filing his Motion for Summary Judgment. The problem with that (well at least ONE of the problems) is that the burdens of proof for successful post conviction relief and legal malpractice are the same in Massachusetts. But not content to stop there, she then granted the wealthy and high-powered Defendants an extension of time in which to file their Motion for Summary Judgment, and she ignored Mr. Gillenwater's request for Mediation, made after the Defendants called him into a back-room session and tried to make him agree to a low-buck settlement with no licensed mediator present.

That's why Mr. Gillenwater should file a Motion to have Judge Giles recuse herself for unlawful bias.

And that's why I have it on Good Faith that Mr. Gillenwater will be appearing before the Full Panel of the Court of Appeals, given this protectionist mealy-mouthed Mickey Mouse Order the single Justice issued last week.

Jeffrey Denner is not a ho, nor is he a racist, but as a so-called Civil Rights Attorney he sure is pimping Derrick Gillenwater, benefitting from some patently Unconstitutional rulings and it has got to stop.

Clark Rockefeller/Christian Karl Gerhartsteiter goes to trial; stray critic of this blog gets straightened out on the facts.

So Clark Rockefeller/Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter will indeed have his Day in Court, which is more than Derrick Gillenwater has enjoyed.

"Attorney Jeffrey Denner said the defense team was unable to reach an agreement with prosecutors after extended negotiations. He would not say why the negotiations broke down."

[It must be rough to have negotiations break down, but then again Derrick Gillenwater would know all about that, seeing as he never got a mediator in his negotiations with Jeffrey Denner. He filed a Motion for a Mediator but that's been ignored by the Court and by Jeffrey Denner, surprise surprise, beat the baby seal some more willya.]

"Rockefeller's real name is Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter (GAYR'-hahrtz-ry-tur), a German national who moved to the United States in the late 1970s.

His true identity was revealed after he was accused of snatching his daughter, Reigh Boss, during a supervised visit in Boston in July. He was captured about a week later in Baltimore, and the girl was found safe.

The girl's kidnapping sparked a search from Long Island marinas to Caribbean islands. After investigators discovered his true identity, California authorities labeled Gerhartsreiter a "person of interest" in the 1985 disappearance and presumed slaying of a San Marino couple, Jonathan and Linda Sohus. Gerhartsreiter, who then went by the name Chris Chichester, was living in a guest house on their property when they disappeared.

In addition to parental kidnapping, Gerhartsreiter is charged with assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and giving a false name to police. Authorities said he pushed a social worker who was overseeing his visit with his daughter and jumped into a waiting car. The social worker received minor injuries when he tried to grab onto the car and fell to the ground."
****************
Meanwhile someone wrote me yesterday and clearly has the point and the intent of this blog all confused. I don't hate Jeffrey Denner, never have and never will. I just hate his actions in this case, and he's clearly taking advantage of an unfair system and Unconstitutional rulings, which does ultimately lower my perception of him as a Civil Rights lawyer and as a man.

Besides, don't complain to me, it was the folks over at Harvard Law School who also called the Courts primary (and continuing) Decisions in this case UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Read it right here at the Citizen Media Law Project. And not only that, Jeffrey Denner is hardly "defenseless." He's one of the wealthiest people in Massachusetts and he's free to post his comments on his blog or on my blog, which is one helluva lot more rights than Derrick Gillenwater has.

Here are some other issues Jeffrey Denner has had, including Derrick Gillenwater and Oscar Atehortua, and read the full conversation in the comments.

A most ridiculous, evasive and old boy network protectionist Order from the single Appeals Justice for Judge Linda Giles in Gillenwater v. Denner.

In yesterday's Spotlight Post about Suffolk Superior Judge Linda Giles we discussed the explicit requests of Plaintiff Gillenwater to, inter alia, have his First Amendment and basic Human and Civil Rights restored. But then the Court of Appeals impliedly denied that basic right without even mentioning it, and to add insult to injury, without ruling in Mr. Gillenwater's favor, impliedly directed Judge Giles to revisit the issue of whether Mr. Gillenwater can file basic pleadings, i.e. a Motion to Compel and a Motion for Summary Judgment. Keep in mind that the Defendants have been granted an extension to file their Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Giles, of course.

And guess what else? Plaintiff Gillenwater to my knowledge is STILL having a hard time getting a copy of that Court hearing in which Judge Linda Giles showed her outright bias and prejudice against his case, and even incorrectly told him that he had to ask permission of another judge to obtain a copy of the transcript from her own courtroom.

This is going straight to the U.S. Justice Department, and I hope Mr. Gillenwater approaches the full Appellate Bench with this nonsense: Look at the specific requested relief from this post, then look at that mealy-mouthed Order in comparison. God Damn this entire Court system and God Damn Jeffrey Denner -- a so-called Civil Rights lawyer -- for benefitting from this outright criminality.

REQUESTED RELIEF

1. May the Court please return my First Amendment Rights to blog about this case, and to talk about this case subject to the rules of Defamation regarding public figures.

2. May the Court please return my Fundamental Rights to file a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Compel relevant discovery about the Oscar Atehortua case.

3. May the Court appoint a visiting judge from another Federal Jurisdiction to monitor this case.

4. May the Court order an inquiry with the U.S. Justice Department regarding the Fundamental Civil Rights, Procedural and Substantive Due Process Rights that I have been denied in this case.

CONCLUSION

I have had my First Amendment Rights to free speech subject to Defamation taken away in an Unconstitutional Court Order. I have had my First Amendment and Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights to file basic Motions taken away in an Unconstitutional Court Order.

We live in the United States of America, and I pray and hope to God that this Honorable Court will actually care enough about the preservation of these Rights to step forward and correct the wrongs that have been set against me.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
Derrick Gillenwater

Spotlight on Massachusetts Judge Linda Giles to do something fair and stop hating on a "Negro" as CT Judge Cortissa Cofield does.

You remember Judge Linda Giles in this case. She is the third Judge to rule or affirm the extremely protectionist, Unconstitutional First Amendment Prior Restraint that Derrick Gillenwater has no legal rights to:

a) blog about his case
b) file basic pleadings like a Motion to Compel or a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Now Judge Giles has been accused of unlawful bias before, (more) but unlike this case, her judgment in that case seemed reasonable and afforded the individual rights, instead of stripping them away. But lesbians love to hate on some straight black men, and Derrick Gillenwater is clearly a straight black man. That's why it's important for Judge Giles that a gay white student be permitted to dress up like a girl and go to class but a straight black man can't even file a damn court pleading, or exercise his First Amendment Rights.

Welcome to Boston, where they like their black men emasculated, but keep them working on the ranch, just like a bull.

And what's this? Another black man, Leevonn Cloud, (Cloud v. Community Works 2000 WL 35454024) had some harsh words about her too, and while Cloud -- a former BU Student Bar Association President -- is a bit of a character, the underlying timbre of what he's saying about Her Honor must not be ignored:

A. Whether Judge Giles abused her discretion and, also, denied plaintiff minimum due process by denying plaintiff the right to call fact witnesses and present documentary evidence in support of plaintiff's claims.

B. Whether Judge Giles abused her discretion and denied plaintiff minimum due process by adopting procedures which were pronouncedly unfair denying plaintiff the right to be heard fully and fairly in support of plaintiff's claims.

C. Whether Judge Giles abused her discretion and, also, denied plaintiff minimum due process by denying plaintiff the right to be heard before an impartial and unbiased decisionmaker.

D. Whether Judge Giles deliberately sabotaged plaintiff's state court trial and, also, improperly allowed a Directed Verdict to help defendants' attorneys deny plaintiff his day in federal court.

*11 36. On March 1, 1999, the attorneys from Palmer and Dodge let it be known that defendants were ready and eager for trial. Judge Giles stated that the trial would take place. When plaintiff reminded Judge Giles of her statements of February 25, 1999, she accused plaintiff of stalling.

37. Judge Giles then went through plaintiff's witness list and struck every witness that he wanted to call to testify in support of his claims. When Plaintiff objected, Judge Giles berated him for not knowing the rules of evidence, especially the rules pertaining to hearsay. According to Judge Giles, any evidence that plaintiff could possibly elicit from any witness he wanted to call in support of his claims was rank hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible.

38. Plaintiff moved for a continuance, explaining that it was impossible for him to go forward with the possibility of calling only hostile witnesses to prove his claims: namely, the named defendants and those affiliated and/or associated with the named defendants. Besides that, plaintiff informed Judge Giles that the attorneys from Palmer and Dodge had not prepared the promised exhibit list.

*12 39. Judge Giles stated that she would give plaintiff overnight to reconsider and warned plaintiff that if he did not go forward she would dismiss his case for want of prosecution.

40. Judge Giles concluded by informing plaintiff that she would only recognize in hand service of any subpoena he attempted to serve on a hostile witness. When he tried to explain to Judge Giles that this requirement was beyond that required by the Mass. Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Giles yelled at him for again questioning her orders.

Judge Linda Giles' conduct and behavior clearly speak volumes as if Judge Giles herself had come right out and said: “I will not allow you to prove your case against these defendants. I will do my very best to *17 derail your federal trial. I will abuse you. I will humiliate you. I will slander you. I will intimidate you. I will make untrue statements to you. I will make untrue statements about you.”

**********

She did the same thing to Derrick Gillenwater, even though she was enforcing Unconstitutional Orders.

And at bottom, as Connecticut Judge Cofield's outburst proves, no creature of the World engenders more hatred than a black male, that's why she called one of them -- a police officer even -- a nigger herself. And she's BLACK!!!

Court denies Derrick Gillenwater's Interlocutory Appeal, so still no First Amendment Rights to blog; unclear on his right to file basic pleadings.

Again, I'll have to correct myself later if I get something lost in the translation from the law students, but here is my understanding of what happened on the Interlocutory Appeal.

1. The Court of Appeals continued to deny Mr. Gillenwater the right to blog about this case.

2. The Court remanded the case for some kind of further action with respect to Mr. Gillenwater's request to file a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Compel discovery on other cases of alleged malpractice or professional conduct complaints, such as the Oscar Atehortua case.

3. Mr. Gillenwater still cannot get a return phone call from the Court Reporter to get the transcript that he's entitled to as a matter of law from Judge Giles' courtroom.

That's all I know. I also know that the U.S. Justice Department is going to be seeing this case if I have to take it to the Department myself.

But I doubt I'll have to do that, the students and Mr. Gillenwater appear to have things well under control -- even though Mr. Gillenwater continues to labor under a clearly Unconstitutional decision, and Attorney Denner keeps on benefitting from it.

"I am not a racist," said Boston Civil Rights Attorney Jeffrey Denner. "I just benefit from a legal system that is."

In the last post we discussed how prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner was using clearly Unconstitutional court rulings and nonrulings to whip a slave and club a baby seal to death in the valid legal malpractice case of Derrick Gillenwater v. Jeffrey Denner/Kevin Barron.

So it made me think for a while about Attorney Denner -- whom I believe is Jewish -- would respond to allegations of being called a racist, which is kind of what I implied yesterday, and that is the best would-be answer I can come up with. Perhaps when Mr. Gillenwater asks him that question on the witness stand he will have an even better answer.

Boston Bob asks Pastor Wall and Professor Burnham at Black History Month, "Are Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron closet racists?"

I got to thinking about the situation noted in yesterday's Eric Holder/Barack Obama post about the Interlocutory Appeal filed by Derrick Gillenwater against prominent Boston lawyer Jeffrey Denner et al. to get his basic Civil Rights back in his valid legal malpractice claim. You know, First Amendment Rights, the Right to blog, the right to file basic pleadings and that. So I emailed several folks, including Professor Margaret Burnham (former NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney) and Pastor Bruce Wall (noted area Civil Rights Activist, retired 25-year Boston Juvenile Court Magistrate and possible Mayoral candidate) to get their opinions, let them know what's going on.

You might not recognize Attorney Burnham (l), but I'll bet you recognize her client, Angela Davis, the most famous (infamous to some) afro in history.

What Jeffrey Denner is doing -- by benefitting from what folks at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, through their CItizen Media Project, and I have called an Unconstitutional" decision(s) -- is tantamount to whipping a slave, or like clubbing a baby seal to death. I used to have a lot of respect for Jeffrey Denner, now a bit (read: a lot) less so.

Oh my. Derrick Gillenwater and the law students have really gone and done it. They filed an Interlocutory Appeal, 2009-J-58.

Apparently I'm on a need-to-know basis, but what I do now know, is that the email I received this morning from the law students is accurate, and Derrick Gillenwater has filed an Interlocutory Appeal against Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron, his erstwhile counselors now accused of legal malpractice. I say 'need to know basis' because it's kind of like they don't want me to be too close to the situation, as they haven't sent me the entire Motion yet -- nor did they send me a case number; I had to call the Court of Appeals for that myself just now.

The part they DID send me makes perfect sense given what I -- we all -- know about this case, which is that Jeffrey Denner, a Civil Rights lawyer no less, has successfully convinced several judges who took Oaths of Office -- to strip Derrick Gillenwater of all of his First Amendment Rights to blog about this case, and to file any and all Memoranda in the Trial Court. Again, the Court did this even though there's been no finding that Mr. Gillenwater ever filed anything frivolous. But then that is the legacy of Boston, going on back to the Charles/Carol Stuart murder when no black man was free from oppression. So then this is what I got by way of a cut-and-paste email:

REQUESTED RELIEF

1. May the Court please return my First Amendment Rights to blog about this case, and to talk about this case subject to the rules of Defamation regarding public figures.

2. May the Court please return my Fundamental Rights to file a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Compel relevant discovery about the Oscar Atehortua case.

3. May the Court appoint a visiting judge from another Federal Jurisdiction to monitor this case.

4. May the Court order an inquiry with the U.S. Justice Department regarding the Fundamental Civil Rights, Procedural and Substantive Due Process Rights that I have been denied in this case.

CONCLUSION

I have had my First Amendment Rights to free speech subject to Defamation taken away in an Unconstitutional Court Order. I have had my First Amendment and Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights to file basic Motions taken away in an Unconstitutional Court Order.

We live in the United States of America, and I pray and hope to God that this Honorable Court will actually care enough about the preservation of these Rights to step forward and correct the wrongs that have been set against me.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
Derrick Gillenwater

Why is Eric Holder pictured with President Obama? Because he's the new U.S. Attorney General, in an administration that campaigned on open government and fairness. And while I'm not into identity politics, I can only hope that the fact that he's black will help sensitize him to the valid concerns of Derrick Gillenwater, a black man without much money in a hard, cruel World defined and dominated by wealthy whites who have conspired to take away all of his basic human rights in this case. He took a stand on waterboarding, so hopefully he will take a stand on this once it reaches his desk. From what I have seen I can assure you it will reach his desk.

Jeffrey Denner's client, Clark Rockefeller/Karl Gerhartsreiter is one unhappy fella'.

Back story: I posted about Jeffrey Denner and Clark Rockefeller/Karl Gerhartsreiter a couple of weeks ago in an entry entitled:

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

Well by the terms of this potential plea agreement it looks like they pretty much had The Goods on ol' Karl, I would hate to think that Attorney Denner or any of his friends or associates was engaged in any negligent representation as has been the case in the past, in my opinion. Not to mention the related opinion from the BBO in the Oscar Atehortua case.