Clark Rockefeller eats a Turkey Sandwich and watches Coalition of Crime Bloggers post on Jeffrey Denner climb the Google charts.

I told you last week or so that I had joined the Coalition of Crime Bloggers so more people could read about Derrick Gillenwater v. Jeffrey Denner & Kevin Barron, legal malpractice allegations, a previous issue involving disciplinary proceedings of supervised attorney Richard Abbott, a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel and the Court's Unconstitutional restrictions on Plaintiff Gillenwater's First Amendment Rights in blogging and in Court filings.

This entry "Biggest lawyer in Boston, Jeffrey Denner, is in Big Trouble on criminal malpractice case" is now on the second page for Google when running "Jeffrey Denner" as a word search, so now anyone researching Attorney Denner can become more informed about actual court cases.

Such as the ongoing case of Clark Rockefeller; read about him "going to get a turkey sandwich" in this Vanity Fair story from last summer. I believe that is the back of Mr. Rockefeller's head in the picture from my last post.

Let's hope he does better for Mr. Rockefeller or whatever his name is (Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter) than he did with Kevin Barron for Derrick Gillenwater ("ineffective assistance of counsel") or with Richard D. Abbott for Oscar Atehortua (failed to file an appeal for a jailed man as Denner shed himself of the case).

Martinlutherking.org blog proves Boston Bob is right about Copyright and prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner.

This story is in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution.

It goes with the Copyright post from last week.

****************

"The King family could try to unplug Stormfront by filing an Internet domain name complaint or a lawsuit, lawyers said. But they said it would not be an easy case.

“As vile, reprehensible, ignorant and horrible as that Web site is, one could argue that it’s political comment,” said Pete Wellborn, an Atlanta lawyer who specializes in Internet law and has taught at Georgia Tech. Still, Wellborn said the Kings could succeed, especially if Stormfront is making any money off King’s name. [Note: This blog in no way seeks money off of Attorney Denner's name, as previously noted. See also the new profile comment.]

Another Atlanta Internet attorney, Doug Isenberg, said a domain name complaint is easier to pursue than a lawsuit but that the King family would have to prove a “bad faith” attempt to confuse the public. Bad faith claims often involve appropriation of a corporation’s name for a Web site that sells a competing product.

“Obviously, Stormfront and the King Center are not competitors,” Isenberg said.

Obviously, it goes without saying that this blog and Jeffrey Denner are not competitors either, so he has no real case against Boston Bob. Time to pay Derrick Gillenwater and watch Boston Bob quit posting. In fact, if I receive an email from Derrick Gillenwater asking me to take this blog down because of any settlement proceedings I will strike the whole blog because all that matters is Justice for Mr. Gillenwater, and some respect from Attorney Denner.

So Jeffrey Denner thinks he has actionable damages for copyright infringement? Better think again.

According to a recent court transcript pp 13-15 prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner believes that he has a cause of action against Derrick Gillenwater and/or Boston Bob for copyright infringment.

Well against Mr. Gillenwater, he has bupkis. Mr. Gillenwater shut down his blog shortly after the Court Unconstitutionally ordered him to do so with a ruling that was a heinously overbroad form of prior restraint.

As to me, the best he could get is a restraining order on a good day for using "dennerlaw.blogspot.com" because he uses "dennerlaw.com" as his portal. But even if he wins on that, I could be ordered to change the URL but the Court can't stop me from linking his public website in every post should I so choose.

But more importantly, he has no damages. I exposed some facts about his activities and issued a comment and opinion about them. He can open up a page on his website and address it if he likes because you fight speech with speech, not censorship.

But that's a losing battle because it just draws more attention to his questionable activities. Best he just settles with Derrick Gillenwater and who knows, I'll probably pull the blog anyway, its point and purpose having been satisfied. When I call the courthouse I just want to hear the docket clerk tell me, "Sir, this case has been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice." As to Attorneys Denner and Barron being upset about all of the people who saw this blog along the way, that's life in a Free Society. They should have settled this case a long time ago, they know what they did and they've known that for 4 or 5 years now; this is a 2005 case for Pete's sake. You snooze, you lose.

Besides, this blog is not for commercial gain. It's here to expose some serious legal issues, nothing more and nothing less. So that's yet another copyright hurdle that Denner can't leap.

I've got my IP lawyer on retainer and he's no dummy. Here's some commentary from Eugene Volokh's Volokh Conspirary on a similar issue.

Derrick Gillenwater gets beat up by the Court for not taking a settlement that was never offered.

P.9
The Court: If you took the settlement there would be no trial.

Mr. Gillenwater: There's no settlement to take.

Whereupon opposing counsel goes into the fact that Mr. Gillenwater has gone through two sets of attorneys, but the reason for that is simple: The first Attorney told Mr. Gillenwater that he wouldn't do the trial without an expert witness. But having paid more than $50,000 to Defendants, Plaintiff Gillenwater has exhausted his funds for an expert and plus, Massachusetts law does not require an expert witness in legal malpractice. Mr. Gillenwater, from what I understand, is willing to let it ride to the Jury, just subpoena Judge Moriarty to ask her why she wrote what she wrote and to whom did it apply in her legal opinion. That's it. Also the document is self-authenticating anyway, just get a court stamp on it.

Such is his inalienable right in the United States of America, a public trial where all of Boston can walk in and see him present his case against Defendant Denner. He's ready to go right now. The Court will ask questions of Mr. Gillenwater on Direct examination in narrative form, this is how its done. Simple.

The second counsel was never on board to take the case to trial, they only put in a limited appearance, and they refused to go after the Interrogatory 26 information about Denner's past involving what to me is clearly negligence with Attorney Abbott. Hell they failed to even file an Appellate Brief. In re Abbott, BD 2001-045.

Well they never got a settlement offer, but they sure did stick Mr. Gillenwater with an $11,000.00 lien that will come out of any settlement, and without the Court's permission he can't even file a Memorandum in opposition to that.

So he's fucked. Royally.

Here is the transcript; see for yourself.

PS: At page 21 the Court sends the Parties to mediation, but that didn't work, so obviously then Denner wants a trial. So that's what he will get. In the meantime Derrick Gillenwater has to be allowed to file his Motions and to reopen his blog. Who knows, there might be a trial only on damages if Mr. Gillenwater's Motion for Summary Judgment carries.

Oh, wait a minute. He's not allowed to file that Motion.......

Merry Christmas for the Cause of Justice: Derrick Gillenwater's public court hearing in which he begs for his First Amendment and other basic rights.

Some law students who are trying to help Derrick Gillenwater let me know that they are going to send me a copy of a court hearing in which Mr. Gillenwater allegedly asks for his First Amendment Rights while asking about the Motion to Compel information about Oscar Atehortua, a former client of Jeffrey Denner, who may have died in jail after Denner and Richard D. Abbott (a lawyer who rented space from Denner) failed to timely file his Appellate Brief. In re Abbott, BD 2001-045.

Here is the transcript.

PP 4-5: Watch Counsel for Defendants lie about Interrogatory 26, which asks for full disclosure of BBO and Civil Complaints against Attorney Denner. He lies and says he will produce all of the information, but I seriously doubt he has produced one damn thing. That will be for Mr. Gillenwater to address at the January 13 litigation control conference.

P.9
The Court: If you took the settlement there would be no trial.

Mr. Gillenwater: There's no settlement to take.

Here are the money quotes showing a violation of time, place and manner restrictions:

**********

P.12
Mr. Gillenwater: "I'm ready for trial in February, but can we at least have a hearing on my First Amendment so I can be able to have my blog up? There's nothing in there defamatory, it's what is in the public record that's on my blog and that's allowing me to prepare myself defensively. In an attempt that I have to represent myself I could reach out to different legal schools in the community which I have been doing to prepare me this far."

[Ignored except to the extent that Denner's lawyer and the Court rehashed the old, Unconstitutional standing Court Order.]

P.18
Mr. Gillenwater: "And to keep saying I can't speak about it publicly is clearly taking away my First Amendment right."

The Court: "It wasn't that you couldn't speak about things publicly. It was the way that you were going about it that was the issue the last time we were here."

**********

Huh? That's some SERIOUS double talk. The Court means to say, "You were mighty effective for a nigra' boy. We never expected you to be able to speak publicly so well, and we hate it."

You want more, I've got the Judge in a total lie that should result in Mr. Gillenwater filing a United States Judiciary complaint for lack of candor from the bench, in light of everything else:

****************

P.6
The Court: Okay, fine. "This thing about a request to the BBO to open an investigation, I don't have any authority to tell them to open their investigation. You have to take that up with the BBO."

**********

Okay, that is a bald-faced lie. Read 96-P 1791 Commonwealth v. Diamond. I have reason to believe that the BBO of course told Mr. Gillenwater he had no recourse with them as to the possible malpractice; he had to take it up with the Court.

The same Court that is busy denying him basic Civil Rights, of course.

Meanwhile, I can (and will) offer my observation:

As I noted yesterday, the Court is ignoring Mr. Gillenwater's request for an Emergency Hearing to regain his basic fundamental, inalienable rights. That's because if the Court stiffs him on another hearing he will have rights to file an Interlocutory Appeal. So rather than stiff him, the Court just ignores him. But on January 13 Mr. Gillenwater should politely ask for an official ruling on that Motion he filed waaaaaay back on December 4, 2008. Whether he gets one or not he should consider that the effective day, date and time of another adverse ruling and take it straight upstairs to the Supreme Court.

I sincerely doubt the Supreme Court will tolerate these lower court shenanigans.

The clock is ticking.....

PS: That's Sacco and Vanzetti in the inset of the picture I selected for today's post. In the High Court most of an entire room is dedicated to their case, which was a complete travesty of Justice. If the Court keeps on with this sort of foolishness perhaps Derrick Gillenwater's case will soon occupy a spot next to them.

Mockingbird's Robert Mulligan takes a look at Gillenwater v. Denner; becomes too offended for words, and dies on the spot.

Well not exactly but I'm sure he (and Atticus Finch) would be at least as offended as I am. Here is a story about his life and death.

Coincidence: An anonymous poster wrote in to this blog about a week ago and signed off as "Atticus Finch." Was it him? Who knows..... after all, noted New York Attorney Malpractice lawyer Andrew Lavoot Bluestone is looking on.

Derrick Gillenwater's Emergency Motion for First Amendment and Rights to File Motions to Compel and for Summary Judgment was..... ignored.

A source at Suffolk Superior Court informs me that Mr. Gillenwater did indeed file an Emergency Motion to get his First Amendment Rights back and for permission from the Court to file a Motion to Compel and for Summary Judgment.

Three weeks ago, on December 4, 2008. No response to date.

But when the high-powered Defendants Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron sought an emergency motion to get Mr. Gillenwater's blog shut down, the Court hopped to it and did the dirty deed in about 72 hours, offering up this Unconstitutional Ruling as noted by the Citizen Media Law Project.

There is a "Litigation Control Hearing" in Gillenwater v. Denner et al, 05-5469, scheduled for January 13th, 2008 at 2pm. Maybe that is when the Court will finally just go on ahead and lynch that uppity negro Derrick Gillenwater for daring to assert his rights as a United States Citizen. Then Massuh' Denner and Massuh' Barron can keep on practicing without those pesky increased malpractice insurance premiums, because gosh knows Denner can't afford any of that, with only $28M and $16M settlements under his belt from the Big Dig fiasco that killed Milena Del Valle.

Better read this post to and this post to understand more fully.