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.
No comments:
Post a Comment