Wednesday, April 11, 2012

"True JACC" Civil Case Heard Before Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Source Describes A Hard-To-Watch "Legal Enema" As Jill Clark Hammered By Tough Questions From The Bench...

Stock photo, image from Forward Operating Base Sharana, Afghanistan, blog post by John Hoff

Yesterday, the same day word went far and wide that Jill Clark had lost both of the rancid and hopeless "Spanky Pete" court cases, (click here for that story) Clark was also in front of a three judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The case concerns what has become known as the "True JACC" controversy... which newly elected members of the Jordan Area Community Council (JACC) board of directors wrestled control away from a clique of individuals who had allowed mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility to ride roughshod over the organization. (The case, if you want to look it up, is Ethylon B. Brown, et al v. John Hubbard, et al, 27-CV-09-2277)

Because the JACC board split into factions and some aspects of the election were disputed, with two groups proclaiming themselves the "true" executive officers of the board, the controversy came to be known as the "True JACC" dispute.

Naturally, flakey Golden Valley attorney Jill Clark threw in with the losers, malcontents and bad actors as their attorney. This resulted in a decisive and overwhelming loss in district court. In fact, the losing plaintiffs were assessed attorney fees.

Naturally, Clark appealed. At one point, as I previously reported, she whined about being ill and asked for an extension to file something. My source tells me that despite being granted an extension in response to her whining and (my gut tells me) 200 proof pure malingering, not everything expected to be filed was actually filed.

But at least Clark showed up in court yesterday. Given her recent flakey trend of "attorney unavailable," I wouldn't have bet my paycheck on it. Clark was dressed all in black like a badly aging lounge singer. She had a very small and pathetic entourage.

Terry Yzaguirre, the force behind the Mpls Mirror blog whose extensive and bizarre legal troubles are in the hands of Jill Clark, was seen out in the hallway but reportedly didn't enter the room to watch the hearing. Clark's cheering section inside the court room reportedly consisted of her client, Level Three Sex Offender Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer.

Just as the hearing was about to begin, some legal papers were handed to the defense side: court orders in one of the two "Spanky Pete" cases decided April 5. Spanky had lost.

And, also, as fate would have it--Spanky had lost in the OTHER case, too.

It was a good omen for the defense. Having already won the JACC case overwhelmingly in the district court, they simply needed to hold their ground. It was Clark who needed a miracle, but there was no sign of God in her corner...only the Level Three Sex Offender who had just lost two court cases where Clark was representing him. If there were a musical sound track for this court proceeding, it would the Titanic theme.

My source says Clark looked "rattled and crazy" as she stood to speak with "pages of handwritten notes." The judicial panel started out with three female judges but then, incredibly, a judge named Kevin G. Ross (click for his profile) tapped one of the female judges on the shoulder and the judges "switched out." My source tells me it was Judge Bjorkman who was replaced by Judge Ross. Judge Halbrooks was presiding and Judge Worke was also on the panel, but Ross was the one asking all the pointed questions.

Ross seemed extremely familiar with the case and began "hammering" Clark. My source described it as "a painful legal enema" and said it was "hard to watch." The other two judges said nothing as Ross took the lead.

Clark started out by saying the court should use its "equitable powers" to reinstate the ousted JACC officers. "Equity," for those who only think it's the portion of your mortgaged home you actually own, means powers inherent in the court to decide things based on what seems "fair" and not just case law or statutes. Equitable powers are something of a relic but raise their head every so often in lawyerly arguments. Generally, when you're arguing "equity" it's a sign you don't have either the law or facts on your side, but you desperately hope your cause (or your client's cause) seems "right" or "just" at some emotional level and the court will throw you a bone.

However, Clark's mangy dog of a case didn't seem to be getting any equitable bones. The court asked pointedly about why the court should use "equitable powers" when the ousted executive board members had the option (which they did not exercise) of running for election.

"YES OR NO," asked Judge Ross, trying to nail Clark's legal jello to the wall. "Did they run for subsequent election?"

"No," Jill answered. It was the perception of my source that Clark "backed away" from her argument about equitable powers when Judge Ross seemed unreceptive.

There was next a discussion about "derivative claims," i.e., the ability of a board member to sue ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD and whether you can somehow bring these rights along with you when you're no longer on the board. Some great quotes that came out of this arcane discussion:

Judge Ross: Are you disputing that there is a holding?" (by the district court)

Clark: I'm not disputing that, it says what it says.

And, also, at one point Jill insisted the district court did not consider "the factual facts."

Where is the law? Judge Ross kept asking. Where is the equitable remedy? What was the equitable remedy that the district court was compelled to order given the undisputed facts?

"I don't have it in front of me," Clark admitted.

Poor Clark. In legal water so high above her head. Imagine a lawyer being asked by a judge to cite to the applicable law! The whole time this legal spanking is taking place, who is watching but Spanky Pete? What's going through his mind? I wonder. And also I wonder, well, do I actually want to know? This may be the reason "factual facts" are avoided in the first place. They are too much to endure.

According to my source, the next questions were along the lines of, "Okay, let's say there was anything illegal or improper by the new executive board. Point me to the statute that says you've got any remedy. What is your remedy?" My source estimates "two thirds" of Clark's allotted time was taken up by questions about "what is your remedy" and that Clark kept ineffectually trying to dodge, duck, dip, and dodge.

At some point the Honorable Judge Ross turned to the issue of Executive Director Jerry Moore's contract. Moore--as many Johnny Northside readers are aware--was fired by the newly elected JACC board after he PUNCHED A BOARD MEMBER IN THE FACE during the previous night's board election. Scrutinizing the language of the contract--which this blog and others have always described as a "purported" contract and some strongly suspect it to be ex post facto in its origins, but what did it matter? It still had a "malfeasance" clause--Ross "called out" the language of the contract as "not typical" of contract language.

In regard to Moore getting fired, the only remedy in the (purported) contract seemed to be Moore had a right to know why he was being fired. Whether this meant nitty gritty specifics or a just a general idea didn't seem to be spelled out very well, but what did it matter? There wasn't talk of severance pay and, furthermore, there was a malfeasance clause! If you do something bad (like punch a board member in the face) you can be fired.

Ross asked Clark about a "hypothetical" situation with the contract. Let us say somebody PUNCHES A MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION IN THE FACE.

Would THAT be malfeasance? Hmmmmm?

Clark made some weak comment about how "it might be self defense." At some point Clark said, "I can't accept the hypothetical." Ross reportedly looked around at the other judges like, "What on earth? I'm asking the question and she won't answer it? When does THAT ever happen in Appeals Court?"

It was the defense attorney's turn. Diane (last name unknown) an attorney for Briggs and Morgan, stood before the court and summarized all the hearings--dear god, the many many hearings, all the precious human time and effort Clark and her reprobate clients had burned up just to vent the bile from their livers over losing power in the neighborhood election. (I'm paraphrasing, here) (A lot)

It was time for Clark's rebuttal and Judge Ross once again pushed for Clark to cite something specific that gave her a remedy. Clark kept trying to pull a fast one and mention how she'd been an employment law attorney for oh-so-many years.

C'est moi! I AM THE LAW.

The hearing was over, but there was still a little bit of entertainment value left in this cartoon network special. Near the end of the proceedings, sex offender Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer could be heard trying to chat up the security guard. "How you doing? How are things going?" That kind of thing. The guard did his best to ignore The Spankinator.

Trying his best to act a gallant gentleman, Spanky Pete ran to hold the courtroom door for Jill Clark, and ended up becoming a doorman for Diane the defense attorney, David Schooler (also for the defense) and defendant Michael "Kip" Browne.

Then, in a sad little epilogue to the proceeding, Pete realized he'd forgotten his white hat and had to run back inside, awkwardly.

My source tells me Spanky Pete and Jill Clark were spotted the next day (today) at Eddington's Soup and Salad near the Hennepin County Government Center, dining together, no doubt plotting their next move like insane inmates plotting to take over the asylum.


Anonymous said...

I heard a rumor that Judge Robert Small is making mince meat out of her in courtroom 1653 this week

Anonymous said...

This bogus lawsuit is still going on? Is the Court of Appeals finally going to tell Jerry and Ben to return the computers?

Johnny Northside! said...

To the first commenter:

I've tried looking up a case by Judge Robert Small where Jill is the attorney, and so far I've had no luck. If what you're saying has a factual basis, could you please elaborate?

To the second commenter:

I think that would require a writ of replevin, a writ of mandamus, SOMETHING, but I don't think "shall they be required to return the computers" was a question before the court yesterday.


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Maybe no one knows, but what were they saying the district court got wrong? I am confused. Maybe the court of appeals is confused too.

Anonymous said...

For your viewing pleasure:

The Three Stooges Listen Judge Part 1 of 2

Johnny Northside! said...

I think it's fair to say they're asserting the district court got it wrong when the district court ruled for the defendants and, furthermore, slapped a hefty judgment for attorney fees on the plaintiffs.

Anonymous said...

The defense attorney's name who argued the case at oral arguments is Diane B. Bratvold.

Anonymous said...

Do you get an impression Judge Ross might write the Court's opinion on this appeal?

Greene Espel, employment consultation and litigation. The firm has or had a contract with LMCIT, League of Minneosta Cities Insurance Trust, if I have the name right. That would be representing a great deal of municipalities, boards, etc.

Had he advised on the Jerry Moore firing from that U.Minn. program, he might have had to recuse himself, so we can guess not.

The bio is interesting about wanting well authored opinions. The Minnesota Supreme Court has discretionary review, and a petition must point out and make a good case of legal error in a Court of Appeals decision.

If you hear of an opinion being issued, we trust you will post something.

Anonymous said...

On the malfeasance question, wouldn't failure to keep back-up financial records in the normal course of operation, off-site back-up to counter theft worries, qualify? Presumably that is being done now, by the new control people. Never mind punching somebody, even at that level there's grounds for dismissal - in general. If there was a written contract, in evidence, the Court of Appeals would likely address that in its opinion. If Judge Ross did employment consultation before appointment to the bench, and it was for municipalities where elections often lead to follow-up personnel changes once a new council or board is seated, that would be a good specific background for being on that panel. East Bethel out in the 'burbs had a new council elected last election, running on an agenda for change, and changes were made. It happens.

Anonymous said...

Can someone help me out with a link to this court case. I tried online with the names and 27-CR-11-15710 and struck out.

Anonymous said...

I don't know why the link is not working. I happened to stop by and see some of this trial and saw Judge Robert Small not taking any of Jill's Clark's nonsense. Its a case where her client is charged with obstructing legal process and resisting arrest. I don't know the merits of the city's case at all the claims against her client may not be true for all I know. It was going on this week in courtroom 1653, not sure if its still going on.

Johnny Northside! said...

OK, I found the case. Not sure why it doesn't come up when the docket number is plugged in, but oh well. I went to the criminal cases, tried searching by attorney, and there it was with the right docket number, right judge, right charges, right time frame.

Yup, that's the case!

Jill Clark represents a guy named Dan Faith Ascheman, charged with (as the commenter stated) obstructing legal process.

The Judge is, indeed, Robert Small.

Looks like a jury trial was taking place on the 11th, the 12th, the 13th. The 13th was Friday, so, even if the trial isn't over it won't start up again until Monday. To which I say...

Are you KIDDING me? Three days so far, over such a relatively minor charge?

Bears more looking into...hmmmmm.

Johnny Northside! said...

Do I think Judge Ross will write the opinion? Note his resume:

"He has authored more than 350 opinions for the court and 30 concurring or dissenting opinions. Judge Ross formed the Quill & Bagel Society, a periodic workshop for judges, law clerks, and staff attorneys committed to honing individual legal-writing skills and maintaining the quality of the court’s opinions. And the George Mason School of Law’s 2011 Green Bag Almanac & Reader named him one of the year’s exemplary judicial opinion writers."

Of course, I also think such great legal writing talent would be wasted on this case, where there aren't really any close questions requiring powerful intellectual scrutiny. It's like calling in a brain surgeon on a week old corpse that has an open head injury and asking, "Can you, the great brain surgeon, pronounce death on this corpse?"

If there are any "issues of first impression" that will make good case law in this case, I can't see what they are...

That a punch in the face is malfeasance? Yeah, I think they figured that one out before the invention of the written word.

That running for election when you didn't like what happened in the previous election is an easier remedy than asking the court to use its rare, obscure, not-often-used equitable powers? Do we even NEED that in case law? Is anybody else stupid enough to ASK for such a thing?

Please, somebody tell me what is the unresolved issue that requires the intellect of this judge to write the opinion, here?

Already there is speculation this won't even be a PUBLISHED opinion.

Anonymous said...

The only reason this opinion would be published would be for the purpose of spanking the alleged "true" JACC board and making an example of their frivalous lawsuit.

Johnny Northside! said...

Maybe if you dig through EVERYTHING, specifically LOOKING for a legal "issue of first impression," you might find something obscure involving "derivative powers" or the procedural posture of summary judgment motions or...or...well, lord-knows-what.

I mean, if your intention is to PUBLISH the opinion and you need a plausible legal reason.

Anonymous said...

Dan Faith Ascheman- Went to law school. Failed. Took the bar exam. Failed. Hired J.C. as his lawyer. Failed.

Johnny Northside! said...

Isn't it spelled Aschemann?

I left off an "n" before. It was that missing "n" messing up my search.

Can you provide me the link to prove he went to law school (which one) and took bar exam?

(When? Where?)

The man is deeply involved with a freakish religious cult. I'm all over it. Details to follow.

Anonymous said...

Some answers here- just not which law school he is a graduate of.

scroll to FACTS

Anonymous said...

Hey a jail roster hit for Aschemann Dan.Faith

Can't find a charge for this.

Anonymous said...

Also look at this article-

First search for the words Aschemann and Ritland in the article.

Then look at this court case (change of name):

Then go back to the article and wonder if Ritland and Aschemann are related.
Also look at this more recent story where the name Steven Ritland also appears. Possibly he is the brother of Ritland/Aschemann (the changing of names to 'Jewish sounding' names is a part of the beliefs of this group). There is another unhappy judge in a recent bankruptcy case involving this sect. The two lawyers appear to both be followers and representing this strange group.{b8069f62-a0ca-455e-9f14-77b0d4cde122}&type=new

More on one of the lawyer's arrest(!) after the judge continued to be unhappy.

It might not be a good thing when your filings are compared and contrasted with those of Warren Jeffs.

"This is the not first such religiously infused attack on a judge. Convicted church leader Warren Jeffs filed a renewed motion to force the judge to recuse herself. This time, however, the demand came reportedly came from God himself. State District Judge Barbara Walther was told that she should “step away from this abuse of power against a religious and pure faith in the Lord.”"

There is some good stuff here.

Anonymous said...

Your attention is called to this detail in a previously linked story:

" A year later, in an affidavit filed in bankruptcy court in Wisconsin, institute CEO Naomi Isaacson - a sister of Shushanie Aschemann - said the organization had "built a $12 million racetrack in Shawano."

Could two brothers in some strange religious group been married to two sisters in the same strange religious group?

SAnother judge was not happy with the filings submitted on behalf of this group:

"Scott also was chastised in August 2010 by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Kressel in Minnesota, who heard a case involving a Yehud-Monosson predecessor. From the bench, Kressel told Scott his pleadings were “among the worst and most scurrilous, defamatory pleadings I have ever seen from a lawyer.”"

Johnny Northside! said...

This link doesn't really work:

That site is very annoying because it seems like you can create a specific URL link for a case, but any URL you create only goes back to the home page.

I'm all over this, however, once I found the divorce case for Dan and his wife and then turned up the newspaper article even before you gave them to me but KEEP THE GOOD INFO COMING.

Johnny Northside! said...

From the old roster data that I captured, here is Dan Faith Aschemann's reported address:

312 4TH ST SE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 3/4/2011.13:01

Anonymous said...

>>>This link doesn't really work:<<<

Not the first time for that mistake. Here is what it is:

Case Case No. 27-CV-04-000708 in Hennepin County Civil filings- a husband and wife name change filed Jan 23, 2004.


Johnny Northside! said...

An interesting case that came down a couple days ago about another Clark client, a former law professor who didn't pay taxes for, like, years.

Johnny Northside! said...

From the bench, Kressel told Scott his pleadings were “among the worst and most scurrilous, defamatory pleadings I have ever seen from a lawyer.”

Is it any wonder Dan Faith Aschemann uses Jill Clark as an attorney?

Anonymous said...

I'm close to the case 27-CR-11-15710 and stumbled on this blog as I was looking for a status on the appeal of that case...

The obstruction charge against Dan Asshead er Aschemann stemmed from him getting in a fight with two deputies who were trying to take him in to custody after he was sentenced to 30 days for not paying child support for nearly a year.

So yes, as if enough time and money has not been wasted on this matter, under the guidance of JC (in this case C is not for Christ) the appeal is still in the works.

Oh, and as if all that wasn't awesome on it's own - good old Dan really learned the error of his ways, and has decided to not pay any child support for over a year again.

Anonymous said...

Also, for what its worth (anonymous internet cooberation!)

Aschemann went to Hamline, barely graduated and failed the bar multiple times so far. He's been claiming that he intends to take it again - this being part of his justification for why he cannot pay his paltry amount of child support.

Rebbecca Scott (formerly Nett) is another member of the freakish cult. The worst filings ever seen, as you quoted them, made the pioneer press and JSonline a couple months back. They were filled with religious rants and accusations that the judge was a 'Pope's boy' and a 'Catholic Knight Witch Hunter' and another was a 'Jeusuitess' The filings sound very much like the ranting of the cults leader (Avarahm Cohen - formerly Rama Behera, formerly something else - the cultist frequently change names, leader included), so he may very well have written them himself and filed them through Scott/Isaacson (though who could ever prove that)

The cult also arranged a protest outside of the federal courthouse in support of thier cause during the last bankruptcy hearing - which was pretty humorous. Here we have a group of people protesting for openess and transparency in a open and transparent legal proceeding that isn't going there way. Meanwhile as I walked through the picket, not one of them would look me in the eye, and if you ever have cause to drive by their compound near Shawno WI, they will take down your plate number, just for passing by. God forbid you stop, that warrants an immediate call to the sheriffs!

I didn't mean to drag the topic of discussion Of J-Cunt... er I mean The Esteemeed Jill Clark Esq. I just know from my own dealings that the cult angle is an interesting sideshow.