Saturday, November 12, 2011

Last Desperate, Pathetic, Choking Gasps Of The "True JACC" Legal Appeal As Attorney Jill Clark Whines For Delay On Account Of Illness...

Stock photo (Hennepin County Government Center) and blog post by John Hoff

The "True JACC" lawsuit which was fought over who was the legitimate governing board of the Jordan Area Community Council was concluded quite a while ago, and yet that worn out old tire still has some tread left on it.

After the Honorable Judge Charles Porter ruled the plaintiffs in that action brought "some or all" of the lawsuit "not in good faith," an appeal was filed (Court of Appeals No. A11-1198) and the case that never seemed to end...still never seemed to end.

But now the sad, desperate, "not in good faith" little legal action might be winding down to an anti-climactic conclusion...

It took a long time for a copy of the Appelants' Motion to make its way to me here in Afghanistan along with used shoes for Afghans and chocolate covered expresso beans for the nights I pull sentry duty, but make its way to me it surely did. In the motion of September 27, 2011, Jill Clark begs piteously for more time on the basis of two factors:

1.) She's still waiting for a ruling on a motion requiring her clients to purchase an additional transcript. (To which I say: Yes, transcripts are expensive, but you mean to tell me that FIFTEEN INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS can't manage to come up with enough jack to just purchase a transcript? I guess it's not so easy to come up with money when you don't have a neighborhood organization to financially rape, and I say "financially rape" based on the results of the forensic audit)

2.) Dog ate my homework.

OK, I'm kidding. Clark emphatically cites some unknown medical condition which has laid her up, and caused her to have "surgery." The oh-so-mysterious malady isn't named, leading one to wonder (maddeningly) what on earth could it be?

Clark is a self-admitted alcoholic, who even published a maudlin musical album called Songs For A Recovering Planet. Clearly, however, there isn't any sort of surgery available for being a boozehound.

The mystery deepens.

Lacking any ability to transform the documents in question to a PDF, it will be necessary for me to reproduce the text wholesale, along with occasional caustic remarks like, for example, when Clark mentions her "staff" that would probably include the "chat line rapist" who (at least as of the date of the JACC trial) worked in her office.

The word "para" replaces "paragraph symbol" in original text. Boldface and italics have not been replicated.

Ready? You might need ear plugs for this, there's some pretty serious whining...



Respondents filed a motion in the trial court seeking to require Appellants to purchase additional transcript. The Trial Court has not yet ruled on that motion.

(JNS says: "Respondents" means the other side of this appeal, i.e. the side that won and doesn't need to appeal, specifically the "New Majority" board members of JACC that included, for example, Michael "Kip" Browne. The Appellants in this action are the loooooooosers, which would be Jill Clark's clients who sued over control of JACC. So when you see "Respondent(s)," mentally substitute "winners." When you see "Appellant(s), mentally substitute "loooooosers.")

Further, Appellant counsel has encountered medical issues and has had to be on medical leave, which will continue (but hopefully come to an end soon).


District Court yet to rule on defense motion for more transcript

On August 9, 2011, the Honorable Charles A. Porter heard oral argument on the Defendants' motion to require plaintiff-appellants to purchase additional transcript for thsi (sic) appeal. (Clark Aff. para 2) Appellant counsel's office has not received any ruling from Judge Porter on that motion. (Id.) See also the Register of Actions at Clark Aff. Exh. 1.

(JNS says: THE DOG, esteemed members of the Appeals Court! A big, vicious, bitey dog with teeth like the gates of Hell that went chomp, chomp, CHOMP and there went Algebra! English! Scared Straight Teen Challenge Class For Boozehounds! The aforementioned dog or dog-like creature--it may have been a wolf!!!--clamped down his mighty jaws and with shakes of its head did rend, rip, TEAR the homework in question!)

(But oh!!! As though this was not horror enough!!! Contrary to all laws of nutrition and the expected behavior of dogs as opposed to, inter alia, GOATS, the fearsome creature proceeded to wolf down--I say again, WOLF DOWN--my homework, even pausing to take its long, pink tongue and lap up every papery scrap! Not only do I seek an extension for the completion of my homework but, my goodness, MEDICAL LEAVE for post traumatic dog-eating-homework stress disorder!)

Appellant counsel medical leave

In early September, Appellant counsel went out on medical leave, which was extended. Although Appellant counsel returned to work part-time, she was unable to work a full week last week due to issues. Yesterday, Monday, September 26, 2011, the plan was for Appellant counsel to be in the office part-time.


However, an unanticipated medical emergency caused Appellant counsel to leave the office to seek immediate medical care. By the time that was concluded, she was unable to work any more that day (and staff had left).

(JNS says: Presumably at least ONE of the staff went home to brood over his dark, utterly unfulfilled sexual fantasies)

Appellant counsel is now scheduled for surgery on Friday, September 2011. (Sic) The occurrences yesterday could not be anticipated: with deep apologies to the Court, Appellant counsel was simply unable to draft a brief yesterday, or even a motion to expand, or a motion to restore oral argument. (Clark Aff. para 3)

(JNS says: I'm all confused by the use of the term "medical leave." Isn't Clark in practice by herself? Especially with her "partner in crime" Jill M. Waite suspended. So who would be the authority to grant this "medical leave" other than Clark herself? And, in that case, can't she grant it any time she wants?)


Appellants originally requested, by motion, until October 15, 2011 to file their brief in this action, due to the district court not having ruled upon the defendant-respondents' motion to require plaintiff-appellants to order additional transcript. This Court granted the motion, but only extended the time to brief until September 26, 2011. Although Appellants greatly appreciates (sic) the extension of time to file brief, the Register of Actions for the district court case shows the motion for more transcript to be "under advisement." If this Court would like the Appellants to brief this appeal before the district court has ruled on the issue of whether the plaintiff-appellants should be required to purchase additional transcript, please let us know.

Appellant counsel apologizes to the Court for any inconvenience.

(JNS asks: where is your apology to the DEFENDANTS for all the cost and inconvenience caused by an action the district court ruled wasn't even brought in good faith?)

(We now return to Appellant's gripping explanation of how the dog ate her homework)

Just before leaving the office for medical leave, Appellant counsel drafted a number of motions for extensions of time. She had already drafted the motion for more time in this appeal (citing that the district court had not ruled), so in a desire to get those motions out the door that final day of work, she did not add in any details in this case about her medical leave.

(JNS says, Translation: Yes, I attended a full day of school after the morning of the dog-eating-homework incident and I said NOTHING about the incident, but that was to avoid inconveniencing my teachers, thinking I could somehow RECONSTRUCT the homework in a timely fashion. Now, finding the loss of the homework to the dog overwhelming, I am compelled to tell you these alleged and purported facts)

Obviously, the leave occurred, and was extended.

(JNS says: How is that "obvious?" Where is the evidence other than your say-so?)

Appellant counsel's staff worked diligently to file all prepared documents in a timely manner, but there were days that Appellant counsel was not available to monitor that filing (and those days were not anticipated). It was for the reason that the motion to extend was filed one day after the date the brief would have been due if the trigger was the already-filed transcript. (Clark Aff. para 4) It would appear, now, that it would be important to resolve the issue of whether the district court is going to order the purchase by Appellants of additional transcript.

(JNS asks: How does whether or not another transcript needs to be purchased have ANYTHING to do with the arguments you need to make in your brief? You may as well tell the court you need a delay until it's determined whether somebody can validate your parking outside the court house, one is as relevant as the other. Furthermore, since the piece of crap you filed was ruled "not in good faith" by the district judge, is there even any DOUBT about which way the ruling will go about whether your clients need to pay for that transcript? Also, I would tend to think the long, dark shadow of "not in good faith" extends even to the arguments in this motion, counselor, particularly when those arguments bear a "separated at birth" resemblance to "dog ate my homework.")

Further, it is the understanding of Appellant counsel from the hearing on this issue, below, that the defendant-respondents intend to file a motion with the Court of Appeals if they are not successful below. (Clark Aff. para 2) It appears that there was no actual delay in the appeal due to the filing of the first motion to extend. Pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 134.01, Appellant seeks reconsideration of the striking of oral arguments for this appeal. This is a case where Appellants believe the Panel would benefit from oral argument.

(JNS asks: Would that be "not in good faith" oral argument like the case itself? I tell ya, if the court isn't even interested in hearing oral argument, that says a lot about which way it's going to go)

Appellant counsel's medical emergency of yesterday was not anticipated. As much planning as possible has occurred with regard to the medical leave. But as a solo practitioner (whose staff are working overtime to accommodate the medical leave), sometimes there is no one else to do the work.

(JNS says: And let's not forget how Jill M. Waite, who was the other half of "the two Jills," has been suspended from the practice of law. Heck, I saw a case just the other day where Jill Clark was acting as Jill M. Waite's attorney! More on THAT later. But maybe a lawyer involved in solo practice should be prudent and not take on so much work, particularly when the cases are of such a cuckoo clock nature that no other attorney would pick up that ball should it happen to get dropped)

By the time Appellant counsel was done with her medical appointment and was able to turn her attention to this motion to extend, staff was gone, and Appellant counsel was unable to work.

(JNS says: I was all alone, the only sign of another living presence being the muddy tracks of the dog that ate my homework, which were washed away by my bitter tears before I could take a picture for evidence!)

With deep apologies to the Court, this simply could not have been anticipated.

(JNS says: Could the fact the lawsuit you're trying to appeal was filed "not in good faith" have been anticipated? Could this be an example of the legal principal "karmus et un bitchum"?)

Appellant counsel has now been scheduled for surgery, and hopes that after a brief recovery she will be able to work full time. (See Clark Aff.).

(JNS says: Biting. My. Tongue.)


Appellants respectfully request until October 15, 2011 to file their Opening Brief as they do not know when the district court will rule, and it appears that Respondents would also file a motion on that topic at the Court of Appeals Level.

(JNS says: Jill signs the document with her psychotic "drooping tumor" abstract signature which bears no relation whatsoever to the name "Jill Clark.")

Clark's affidavit in this case is more of the same dog-versus-homework b.s., except some of the b.s. is worded differently, as follows:

I am now scheduled for surgery on Friday, September 30 for surgery. (Sic) I apologize, but I was unable to draft a brief, or motion to expand, or motion for oral argument yesterday once I returned from the medical provider. I am hopeful that with this final diagnosis, that the surgery will clear up the remaining medical issues and I will be back at work full time in the near future. In this timeframe, however, my ability to draft large documents has been impaired.

(JNS says: We've seen your large documents. How much more "impaired" could you possibly be?)

Appellants do seek oral argument in this case.

(JNS says: If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride)

Appellants should not be penalized for my medical leave.

(JNS asks: Should they be penalized for not filing in good faith?)

The medical emergency of yesterday was not anticipated, and although I anticipated needing to request an additional extension of time to file brief (not just due to the medical leave, but also because the district court has not yet ruled on the transcript motion), I assumed I could easily draft that second motion to extend in half a day.

(JNS says: the medical emergency was YESTERDAY, and you wrote all this crap TODAY, and yet there's a bunch of OTHER crap you just weren't capable of writing? Oh, you can write SHORT crap, but you just can't write LONG crap. Uh huh. What did this dog look like, again?)

I just did not anticipate what befell me, or my inability to be productive after medical care.

(JNS says: Your definition of "productive" leaves much to be desired in the eyes of the defendants against whom you filed this "not in good faith" action)

I have done my best to address all deadlines while on leave, but on certain days this was simply not possible.
JNS says: What? The chat line rapist couldn't help you draft stuff?

I did go and check the online court records and found there were orders in this case dated October 12 and October 19. These orders may pertain to the issue of whether defendants have to pony up for another transcript.

Also, it appears the defendants in this case each share a judgment of $15,000 plus $40,887.37, for a whopping total of $55,887.37. This is the thorny end of the primrose path that Clark led her clients down, and now she's all, like, oh I'm sick--! I can't do very much--! Don't blame my clients--!

Well, perhaps the clients should blame CLARK. What competent attorney brings a case which causes the court to say, "This case was not even brought in good faith"?

And so it appears the fat lady has not yet sung, but she is puttering around with the pages of her sheet music, and taking some deep breaths.

Stay tuned. No other blog or media entity has documented this "Northside neighborhood sea change" lawsuit like the Johnny Northside blog, no other blog has paid so steep a price. This blog was there at the beginning, this blog will be there at the bitter, apocalyptic end.

No comments: