Stock photo, blog post by John Hoff
In what seemed more of a desperate delay tactic than anything else, attorney Jill Clark (who is currently facing serious-as-all-get-out disciplinary proceedings by the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board which could result in the suspension of her license) tried to have her cased removed to federal court.
I am in possession of the document where Clark made numerous arguments about WHY the case should be removed to federal court. I may backtrack and blog about that at some point, but for now the most newsworthy aspect is the result: the federal court didn't take Clark's case under its bald eagle wing.
In an order dated June 15, the federal court said and did as follows:
The court summarized the procedural posture of the case, including the fact an evidentiary hearing is scheduled for June 25, 2012, in front of The Honorable Gerald J. Seibel. On June 8, Clark "filed for removal" to the federal courts. A mere seven days later, down comes this order telling Jill Clark "No way, Jose."
Light speed. By federal court standards.
Clark had argued...
...the existence of federal jurisdiction because she alleges violation of her rights, including her First Amendment rights. However, United States District Court Judge John R. Tunheim said the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. First, wrote Tunheim, a notice of removal must be filed within 30 days. This wasn't.
Clark tried to argue she'd discovered material relevant to the (alleged) violation of her First Amendment rights "in the past 30 days." The court replied, in effect, that only shows you knew about the 30 days. Loud buzzer sound. Thanks for playing. The Honorable Court can almost be heard honorably snickering as it writes its honorable order.
Now pouring legal salt on judiciary-inflicted wounds, the court continued and found ANOTHER reason Clark didn't belong in federal court, even though one reason would have been sufficient. The court wrote it doesn't have jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings related to the STATE license of attorneys admitted to the STATE bar.
The court cited In Re Rhodes, 370 F.2d, 411, 413. The case is from, good lord, 1967. Top songs that year included White Rabbit by Jefferson Airplane.
The court noted, for the record, it had reviewed all the materials submitted by Clark and "finds that Clark has not shown any likelihood that she will be unable to raise her federal claims in state court."
Translation: You are wasting my time. Don't let the swinging door hit you where the good lord split you, counselor. I would say "better luck next time" but a little birdie tells me there probably won't be a next time.