Tuesday, February 10, 2009

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!!!

1 comment:

opencourts said...

Apparently, Judge Giles helped make this issue disappear on Remand:

Cloud v. Community Works
141 F.3d 1149 (Table)
C.A.1 (Mass.),1998.
February 25, 1998 (Approx. 1 page)

However, we reinstate his claim of discriminatory termination against Williams, Paret, and Community Works. In some unspecified period, Williams allegedly suggested that Cloud not attend a fund-raising dance because she felt that he would not fit in with the white, “New Age” people in attendance. Paret allegedly questioned Cloud's ability to conduct himself properly in a room full of white people, especially white men.

We infer from allegations in the complaint that both Williams and Paret were involved in the decision to terminate Cloud. We think that these allegations are sufficient to survive a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).FN2