Jill Clark's request for "re-removal" of her lawyer disciplinary case to federal court, click for PDF of the document, was in and out of federal court so quickly, I didn't have time to write about Clark's arguments and assertions, as conveyed by her attorney Ben Myers.
This was the measured, controlled response of the federal court in response to Clark's transparent ploy to "play for time" in her lawyer disciplinary case.
Because this is Clark’s second meritless attempt to remove this matter and it is inappropriate to continually attempt to delay the state proceedings, the Court will enter an order enjoining Clark, Jill Clark, LLC, and Jill Clark, P.A. from further attempts to remove the state disciplinary proceeding against Clark.
But what, you might wonder, were Clark's "meritless" arguments? Well...
Unfair, So Unfair, And Also It's My Religion
According to the "Notice of Re-Removal And Counterclaim" filed by Ben Myers on June 27, notable because it's the only filing I've seen in a court where there was an explanatory footnote attached to the title of the document, Clark is beefing because the Office of Lawyers' Professional Responsibility never offered her a settlement of these disciplinary charges (first of all) and second "the Director communicated that a full win is a potential public reprimand of Clark."
When the Director (of the OLPR) supposedly communicated this dwarfed vision of "a full win" is not cited by the document. This idea reads more like Ben Myers and Jill Clark trying to plant the idea that merely being reprimanded in public should be a good enough punishment for the various and sundry outrages Clark has allegedly committed.
The document filed June 27 goes on to gripe that an "adequate and neutral" investigation of Clark has not been made and the charges against Clark are "weak." The document then goes on to raise a canard Clark seems to be raising a lot lately: this discipline against her somehow results from her belief in contested judicial elections instead of appointment of judges. It's all political. It's all a conspiracy.
Clark then goes on to trash the judicial system, as follows:
There are, and have been for years, serious issues of bias, case-fixing, and other improper judicial conduct in the state court system. Although Clark is always quick to add that there are numerous fine judges who work hard and strive to obey the law, the state court system as a whole has not sufficiently dealt with judicial misconduct.
Clark asserts her "deeply-held belief" about the court system is her religious freedom protected under the First Amendment and her RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is being trampled. Yes, you read it correctly. Her First Amendment RELIGIOUS freedom.
My guess is Clark is hoping to get herself into a higher court (or at least a FEDERAL court) by trying to tie her case to very interesting judicial system conflicts regarding the protection of quirky individual religious beliefs versus group beliefs, a/k/a "shouldn't EVERYBODY be allowed to use peyote and not just certain Native Americans if that's what they really BELIEVE."
I think this only show's Clark's desperation, that she would use an argument about RELIGIOUS BELIEF when this case has NOTHING to do with THAT.
Furthermore, with Clark only using religious belief in a self-serving, opportunistic way, she's exactly the wrong kind of person to bring a "quirky individual religious beliefs" case into court. If the case became precedent, she'd damage the very cause she purports to support. But it wouldn't be the first time. Just ask any RESPECTED civil rights attorneys in Minnesota what they actually think about Clark.
Synergy, Your Honor, And I Mean That In The Legal Sense
The document tries to link the disciplinary action against Clark, and the many people somehow involved in it, to Clark's stance on judicial elections (she is really in favor of them) versus the stance of other figures who have power in the Minnesota Bar Association and the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (some of these folks strongly favor the appointment of judges). It one point the document asserts there is "obvious synergy" between two different committees. The fact people KNOW each other is proof enough of a conspiracy in Clark's paranoid world.
I HEAR PEOPLE TALKING BEHIND MY BACK!!!
The document tries to get milage out of the fact documents pertaining to her "confidential" disciplinary proceedings went to this person, to that person, and also over THERE. Of course, this blogger (who was LOOKING) never managed to get copies of ANYTHING until Clark herself and her legal team started filing stuff in court. Who makes info available about Attorney Clark? That would be Attorney Clark.
Clark reserves particular vitriol for Daniel R. Wexler, who has the audacity to sit on the Lawyers Board (of Professional Responsibility) while being (gasp!) the son of Judge Wexler, who filed a complaint against her. Clark says she wasn't informed of it and had to "stumble upon" it herself. (Sarcasm font) Yes, it wouldn't have occurred to me, either, that two prominent law school graduates in Minnesota named WEXLER might be related. Such a common name. I think I've known, like, TWO people with that name, both of them talked about here. (End sarcasm font)
Wait, I Have A Race Card Here Somewhere To Play
The document asserts Clark is being targeted for defending people of color. By way of example, Clark says she defended one client who was accused of assaulting a police officer. Clark's defense was that actually the OFFICER assaulted her CLIENT, and used racial epithets. Somehow, Clark doesn't mention which particular case that was that she's referencing, quite likely because Clark's cases go so badly that she seems to be fiendishly working AGAINST her client's interests, all the while purporting to be DEFENDING them.
In the document, the words of Judge Wexler are purportedly quoted making what seems to be either a racist statement or a badly worded statement that comes off as racist. But these are supposedly words said IN CHAMBERS.
Who is the witness to these words? JILL CLARK.
Who is the same person asserting dramatic medical problems with her BRAIN WIRING? Once again, it's Crazy Clark.
If Clark were going to accuse the entire Minnesota judicial system of having problems with "bias, case-fixing and improper judicial conduct," you'd think she'd cite to something else besides her own say-so; something, anything, even NEWSPAPER ARTICLES and straw polls among attorneys about the issues she asserts exists.
Instead, Clark has nothing; nothing but her own word, the word of a loon.
Jill Clark, Martyr For...Well, Jill Clark
Here is how Clark's document describes the effect Clark's struggle has had upon Clark.
Clark has been being assaulted, threatened, intimidated, pressured, sent to back-to-back trials until she literally collapsed, shunned, defamed, and other techniques by state court judges and those closely allied with them.
The document describes another Clark case--once again, the actual case is not named or cited, the better to embroider the facts--where Clark allegedly had to sit and wait for three and a half weeks for her client's trial to be called. Other defendants were supposedly "rewarded" for taking plea bargains. If the facts are so much in Clark's favor and support what she is saying, why doesn't she even name the case while holding it up in her defense?
Once again in the document, Clark lays out her complete and total victimhood, as follows.
That retaliation against Clark for vigorously representing Afrian Americans in the State Court system has taken numerous forms, including but not limited to hostility, harassment, intimidation, name-calling (when Clark first began vigorously defending African Americans in state criminal court word went around the Hennepin County Courthouse that she and another attorney thought they were “blacker than black” which based on context was intended to be a slur), interfering with Clark’s client contracts/relationships, judges rebuking Clark in open court, judicial sanctions against Clark without cause, ruling against Clark’s clients (see also below), shunning, requiring Clark to follow state rules to the nth degree but permitting other attorneys in the case to ignore them (and rewarding them when they did), permitting behind-the-scenes communications and case-fixing to gain an advantage, defaming Clark in open court and behind the scenes, fixing cases against Clark’s clients, prohibiting Clark from obtaining evidence on behalf of clients, prohibiting Clark from obtaining policies that impacted judicial discretion in order to assist her clients, complaints against Clark to the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility for possible ethics charges, and other improper conduct.
I just love how "other improper conduct" is tossed in at the end, kind of like the way Clark loves to add "John Does" to her baseless lawsuits, like, "Oh, in case I've forgotten anything with my malfunctioning brain, well, THE CONSPIRACY IS WORSE THAN I CAN DOCUMENT IN THIS DOCUMENT."
Johnny Northside blog says, with as much sincerity as I can muster, "You deserve better than this, Clark. You were made for greatness. As a lounge singer. For god's sake, go back to your singing career and give up this dreadful lawyering occupation. You've moved the ball as far as you can. Now it's time for some insane person just getting out of law school or walking away from corporate law to take up the torch and, well, set himself or herself on fire to light the way."
Liar, Liar, Pantsuit On Fire
The document rehashes Clark's conflicts with Judge Wieland, in which Clark filed a complaint against Wieland, and Wieland filed a complaint right back. This blog has long suspected Clark's complaint was an example of a "preemptive strike," wherein Clark figured Wieland was going to file a complaint so Clark filed FIRST, therefore able to claim Wieland's complaint was merely retaliatory.
Clark alleges the OLPR has been on a "Get Clark" crusade, as follows:
Clark alleges that the OLPR has expended significant public monies in a full-scale prosecution of Clark all for a potential public reprimand, hoping to have Clark publicly declared a “liar” with regard to allegations of judicial misconduct.
Note how, as before, the document seems to assert, "Oh, a public reprimand, that would be the WORST thing! Pleeeeeeeease don't do THAT! Noooooooo."
In reality, Clark needs to have her law license suspended for a very long time. After all, given the litany of abuse Clark alleges has been heaped upon her, what impact would a public reprimand have? None.
Help, Help, I'm Being Repressed
In February of 2011, the document says Clark's client Paul Stepnes (which the document takes pains to point out is an "openly gay man") filed a complaint against Judge Blaeser. Nothing came of the complaint. Meanwhile, the complaint Blaeser filed against Clark supposedly moved forward (as the document says, with emphasis) rapidly.
Almost casually, the document says Clark "and/or" her clients have made a number of complaints against judges.
It is precisely Clark's habit of burning bridges and acting as though the smallest legal proceeding is an epic battle for the fate of western civilization which makes Clark such a pariah in the legal system, a label she herself seems to endorse by her use of the word "shunned" in this document. Lawyers are expected to be congenial. Clark spits her venom at the legal system and then cries, "Oh, look, they've made me an outcast."
The document claims Clark was endorsed by Minnesota Women Lawyers during her campaign to be a judge in 2002. In a footnote, the document notes Clark does recall some "controversy" concerning "the precise term of what they (the Minnesota Women Lawyers) did," but noted that "endorse" was a close enough term "for the purpose of this filing." Hmmmmmm.
In seeking to find out if Clark was actually endorsed by this group, I came across some interesting chatter on the Minnesota Lawyers blog where an anonymous person asserted Clark was NOT endorsed and, in fact, was found to be "unqualified." Normally, I would give little weight to anonymous assertions on a blog, but I happen to know the MN Lawyer blog is VERY particular about which comments they will publish, so the fact this one was published is telling.
On the same blog post, in the comments, there is an extensive critique there of Clark's writing and research skills which verges on outright mockery of Clark. Another document I found online asserts Clark WAS endorsed by the Minnesota Women Lawyers, and this document seems more credible than the anonymous blog comment, but is also quite revealing.
The document says Clark accuses Wexler of racial bias. Wexler "specifically stated" that Clark's allegations were untrue. Wexler not only won the election but had 4 endorsement's to Clark's lone endorsement. What the "controversy" was over the "endorsement" or use of the word "endorsement" is not clear to me, and I'd love to know. Something below the surface certainly seems to have roiled the waters, here. Rather than simply claiming she was "endorsed," Clark in her filing feels compelled to add a footnote.
"Get Clark" Campaign
The document asserts there is a "Get Clark" campaign, and uses that very phrase with quote marks. If the phrase is exactly the same, are the quote marks exactly the same? These are the things philosophical English Majors can't help but ponder.
Truly riding the crazy train into a blazing sunset, Clark's document begins laying out how much it would cost to hire substitute judges if the entire State Supreme Court recused itself, as Clark has requested or suggested. (The uncertainty of whether it was requested or suggested is found in the title of Clark's document, which is both a legal motion and, good lord, a "suggestion.") Clark appears to suggest that, really, the Supreme Court can only be fair by dismissing the entire thing.
On a related matter, I have a fantasy where I am dumpster diving and find a battered old leather valise stuffed with drug money, all in crisp hundreds. Greed battles in my soul against good citizenship. Greed wins.
Tropical paradise, here I come.
Finding a comfortable seat on the crazy train, the document asserts the OLPR is seeking a "public reprimand" of Clark. Really, if this were only about a public reprimand--no suspension, no fine to be paid--would Clark be having the kind of spectacular mental meltdown she's having at the moment?
Clark has to know this is about more than a public reprimand.
SECRETS? Oh, The Blogger Loves Secrets!
Just to add a little dash of mystery to the madness, Clark's filing contains an assertion about secret and confidential facts she isn't allowed to assert, as follows:
There is additional information that should be inserted here (Footnote 23) but Judges
Zimmerman, Wieland and Blaeser have zealous (sic) worked to keep it confidential, and in spite of their obvious knowledge that Clark has a duty to disclose information about her clients
cases (sic) to those clients, and that Clark has a duty to refer judges who commit misconduct to
the proper authorities. Clark requests that before this Court considers possible remand, that
Clark be afforded the opportunity to subpoena that evidence in order to disclose it to this
Court (whether that be in public or under seal).
What exactly Clark is asserting, here, is a mystery to this blogger. I can't even guess at specifics, but I will take a stab at a generality: whatever it is, it is far less than Clark makes it sound. Like the ravings of a Shakespearean madman, Clark's filings are full of sound and fury, but signify...well, very little.
Clark Asserts Chester House, LLC Was Not A "Fictitious" Client
As previously reported, one of the allegations against Clark is that Clark used a "fictitious" corporate entity, added as a client, to get another "free bite at the apple" and have a judge removed without cause. In this filing, Clark asserts the client was not "fictitious."
Here is the history of the company's filings, as found today on the Secretary of State's website.
08/24/2005 Limited Liability Company (Domestic) Business Name
08/24/2005 Original Filing - Limited Liability Company (Domestic)
01/11/2007 Administrative Termination - Limited Liability Company (Domestic)
02/28/2011 Annual Reinstatement - Limited Liability Company (Domestic)
Gee, sure looks to me like it didn't exist as of January 11, 2007. Looks to me like its existence was revived in February of 2011, no doubt an ex post facto move to assist Jill Clark in this disciplinary hearing. Clark asserts only the filing fee was at issue and the company "existed." To which this blogger says, "Desks, chairs, vehicles and even buildings may exist, but they can't file lawsuits. It takes a corporation to file a lawsuit or be named as a plaintiff in one." (The blogger concedes an inanimate object like a boat or casks of whiskey or a suitcase full of money might be named as a DEFENDANT, but that's not at issue)
In a footnote, Clark whines, "Judge Blaeser's order to show cause arrived the President's Day weekend and forced Clark to spend 20 hours of one of her only free weekends of the year researching what Blaeser could mean by his order." To that, this blogger responds, "Tell it to that jury you kept over the Veterans Day holiday in your batshit crazy Al Flowers lawsuit against Council Member Don Samuels, you malingering, 3-wheeled loon wagon."
Lose Her License? That's A GREAT Idea!
In griping about Judge Lucy Weiland's complaint, the document filed on behalf of Clark says Weiland made 27 or 28 complaints against Clark (depending on how counted) and "no judge makes 27-28 complaints about a lawyer in the same letter unless they want the attorney to lose her license."
To which this blogger responds, in a Homer Simpson voice, "What flavor of PIE would best symbolize Jill Clark losing her license?"
Jill Clark, Champion Of The First Amendment (Gag)
The document filed on behalf of Clark, who once actually asserted the First Amendment didn't apply to this very blog, asserts Clark's First Amendment rights are being violated (good heavens!) because Rule 8.2 is supposedly unconstitutional. This is a rule that applies to members of the legal profession and, in significant part, involves not knowingly making false statements about a judge. Click here for the rule.
I Don't Have To Prove It's True Unless You Can Prove It's False
The document contains a fascinating little section about Jill Clark's view of telling the truth. In summary, when pressed by the OLPR to prove the harsh and hurtful statements Clark had made about Judge Wieland were TRUE, Clark asserted she didn't have to prove the statements were true unless the statements could be proven FALSE.
This would, of course, put the Judge in the logically impossible position of "proving a negative." For example, prove that you have NEVER in your life removed a document from a file when you weren't supposed to do that. Proving this would require you to document every minute of your life. In most instances, "proving a negative" is impossible for any adult human being. For lawyers, who live in the world of logic and "reasonable doubt," dealing with Clark the lawyer must be like dealing with a mental patient.
Oops, did I say "like?" Substitute "the same as."
Jill Clark, Queen Of The Whine Festival
The document asserts Clark suffered "exacerbated" health problems in 2011 following a judge being "particularly abusive" toward her by rebuking her in open court. This caused Clark to go on "medical leave." Once again, Clark doesn't mention the particular case, the better to assert facts that can't be checked. Tediously relating her unnamed medical problems, which somehow involved "surgery," Clark talks about how busy she was and, in an unintentionally funny line, says, "No rest for Clark."
One can't help but hear an echo of the phrase, "No rest for the wicked."
Intriguingly, the document mentions a "protective order" that prevented Clark from "seeing or even hearing about documents produced by the Hennepin County Judges." It's not clear what she means. All Hennepin County judges? Just the judges with complaints against her? What documents? Documents Clark had requested? The supposed protective order, who filed it, the exact date it was filed, none of that is cited.
The document asserts that "stress" to Clark over the protective order issue continues to this day.
"The AEO Emails?" WTF?
Kind of out of the blue, Clark says she has been careful not to disclose "the content of the AEO emails." It's not clear what this means, though my guess is "AEO" would be the initials of a juvenile, kind of like the ugly RNT juvenile case which was the subject of Clark's previous disciplinary action, which was "private" until it came out in the course of the current proceeding.
I have looked at Clark's cases currently in appellate court and in criminal court. I don't see anything that looks like a case belonging to "AEO." Of course, if it's a juvenile matter which has not yet hit the appellate court stage, it seems likely I wouldn't be able to find it on MNCIS.
Clark's Well-Timed Physical Collapses
In a tone that is apparently meant to evoke sympathy and not grim satisfaction, the document describes how Clark spent "the weekend of January 17 writing an extraordinary write to the Minnesota State Supreme Court" and was forced to pay for her transcript. The writ was denied. The document says Clark "collapsed" and went on medical leave on January 23.
And then, in a sentence that is underlined, the document notes Clark had a "public case" served on her while on medical leave. The sentence could, of course, use some revision. I would insert, before the words "medical leave," the phrase "suspiciously timed."
The document goes on to note Clark "collapse" again in June. This appears to be the June 21 freak out episode where Clark's husband, Jeffrey M. Roth, locked Clark out of her email, computer and phone after Clark had allegedly been awake seven days. A blog post with more info about Jeffrey M. Roth is in the works.
Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey, Goodbye Clark
In words too delicious to be believed, the document outlines how Clark could simply lose her license on the basis of her malin--um, I mean her TERRIBLE HEALTH PROBLEMS, and this without any need for a disciplinary proceeding or findings of wrongdoing.
If the Supreme Court recommends the (judicial) referee's recommendation, Clark's license will be taken from her even though the Director has not proven any violation of any ethics rule (...) Clark would only then be permitted to have her hearing on the charges after she returns from disability leave. There is no indication when that would be.
To which the blogger replies: we once saw you miraculously recover in 48 hours when it suited your purposes.
Clark notes her campaign for Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court is "in jeopardy...if not already ruined." This from somebody who has never won a judicial election in her life and, if the trend is any indication, will be a walking miracle if she has a law license when these proceedings are concluded.
Clark Seeks "Sickie Safe Harbor"
Clark argues the Director of the OLPR shouldn't be able to serve her with a suit when she's on disability leave, make her feel worse, then say, "See? You're sick. You can't hack it. We want your law license."
Clark says this would "effectively reward the Director for medically damaging Clark." It seems like in Clark's world, nothing is so medically damaging as judges who are unkind to her and the Director of the OLPR who wants to discipline her. These assertions have the distinctive odor of malingering. And then Clark adds her inability to share the "AEO emails" with her clients has caused her MORE stress. The document then asserts the OLPR "pressed forward" with a weak case in hopes of making Clark medically break down.
Authored By Clark, Edited By Ben Myers?
The document has many of Clark's writing earmarks, but a look and feel that is also different than Clark's usual filings. If I had to take a guess, I'd say vast portions of it were written by Clark but edited and word processed by Ben Myers.
The document, which is 55 pages long, quite likely took longer to write than it took the federal court to reject it.
Watch The Madness Odometer Roll Over With PART TWENTY
The Clark saga will continue. My next blog post (about Clark) will concern her husband, Jeffrey M. Roth.