Thursday, February 19, 2009

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.

1 comment:

opencourts said...

Exactly who is thy brother's keeper in a town like Boston. Apparently no one.

In an email to my distribution list this morning I wrote:

"It is a sad indictment of the Boston journalist and legal community when no one will step forward to correct this situation, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

What if someone took away all of your legal rights?

To whom would any of YOU turn?

I guess you don't have to worry about that, because you've all got a little bit of money, and Mr. Gillenwater has not. He spent it all on ineffective assistance of counsel, remember?"