Picture yourself on a vision quest in the Mojave after losing your law license for being crazy as a dehydrated loon on a full moon Friday night.
You're out there in the desert month after month, rocking back and forth beneath the stars, questioning the purpose of your life. You didn't bring many supplies before your crappy VW van broke down when a big rock took out the transmission, and you're getting sick of prickly pear, though it's quite nutritious and full of vitamin C. Looking for some plastic bags to capture the morning dew for drinking water, you stumble upon a treasure:
A salted nut roll you'd forgotten about for a month.
How would that salted nut roll TASTE? I am guessing DRY BUT NUTTY.
And that's just how Clark's latest court filings strike me, and how they will strike you, but don't worry.
I'm here to make it entertaining and interesting. These latest Clark filings, however, will challenge my ability to pull that off.
As you may recall, Clark was laughed out of federal court. Twice. And the second time the court said...
...don't come back without our explicit permission.
But when would something like explicit instructions from a judge ever stop Jill Clark?
The day before yesterday, Clark filed something called a "status report" with the federal court, click here and also click here for a letter in which Clark yammers on and on about a missing cover letter from the federal court, literally trying to make a federal case out of it, or so it would appear.
Another document in my possession shows the docket with the filings in Clark's federal case or, rather, her two failed attempts to "make a federal case out of" her lawyer disciplinary charges. Click here for that document.
The "docket document" is notable both for what it shows, and what it does NOT show.
Clark's legal counsel is listed as Clark herself, Benjamin Myers, and Julie Delgado-O'Neil, whose name will hereinafter be written without an apostrophe as per the policy of this blog that apostrophes in names are pretentious and should be eliminated.
Delgado-Oneil is or was an assistant Minneapolis city attorney who sued the Minneapolis city attorney's office for discrimination in a lawsuit that utterly failed, click here. As the article linked a moment ago summarized so well, "In June 2005 she took the oral exam for the job and didn't score high enough to be considered." (For a promotion) "The following year, she began filing complaints." Not surprisingly, this prickly malcontent has fallen in with Jill Clark.
I have word that a bunch of documents signed by Julie Delgado-Oneil were filed recently on Clark's behalf in reference to numerous clients, including both Eric and Nicole Yzaguirre, but I am waiting on PDFs by email.
As for what the "docket document" does NOT contain, I have to wonder why Diana Longrie is not listed after appearing as Clark's advocate in a previous proceeding, click here?
By the way, yesterday Longrie was defeated in her DFL primary run against Minnesota's longest serving female Congressperson, as this blog predicted with near-overdose portions of biting humor, i.e. Longrie's quest was an example of "pissing in the wind."
Is Longrie already distancing herself from Jill Clark's spectacular career shipwreck? Or was Longrie always intending to be something of an "interim advocate?"
Note the "docket document" also names some pretty prominent "counter defendants" in Clark's disciplinary matter, namely the State of Minnesota, the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, the Minnesota (State) Supreme Court, and The So-Called Almighty God. (OK, I made up that last one for entertainment purposes, but ONLY that last one)
Pretty much anybody who looked at Clark cross-eyed in the course of these disciplinary proceeding is also named as a defendant. Naturally, Ben Myers looks at Clark cross-eyed, but he's on her side, so he gets a free pass.
Jill Clark's ongoing demise is like something this blogger would have FANTASIZED about while Clark was suing me on behalf of Jerry Moore, the disgraced former JACC executive director who was involved in the mortgage fraud at 1564 Hillside Ave. N., and is currently being sued by the victims of the mortgage fraud.
Stay tuned as my dark blogger fantasy plays itself out in spectacular fashion.
4 comments:
I see you mentioned Longrie’s Defeat in yesterday’s primary, but I see no mention of Clark’s thrashing. I think this site is the official results http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ENR/Results/StatewideJudicial/2?districttypeid=37
This one corroborated the first as well as providing a little explanation for the less politically informed (me for example)
http://richfield.patch.com/articles/local-minnesota-judicial-us-senate-primary-results
The article above says Clark will not be moving forward, which is hopefully accurate. The article also (though indirectly) says about 20% of the voters in yesterday’s primary need their heads examined by a qualified professional if they voted for her on purpose, or that they have defective magic 8 Balls if that tool was used to make their selection…..
Oh, I did mention Jill's defeat in a COMMENT posted somewhere but, being widespread news and hardly surprising, I guess I didn't have anything worth blogging about it.
The Clark vote total is either a sign of widespread dissent among the electorate (highly unlikely) or evidence of the fact people vote in judicial elections without ANY KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER about the people running. In other words, hard evidence that judges should be appointed, not elected, which is what I happen to believe as well.
I mean, we don't have people running for UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, do we? We don't have people running for FEDERAL judge, do we?
Let the courts be intellectual and aloof, as fits their role in a government composed of executive, legislative and judicial. Let our elected representatives choose the judges who will judge. For god's sake, don't make them pander and kiss babies. It is undignified. Let them be appointed.
I've known people who admit that they never read up on judicial races at all. Instead, their voting decision goes like this: "Well, the judicial system is messed up so I'm going to vote against every incumbent." I'm guessing a fair amount of Clark votes came from that thought process. And I use the phrase "thought process" quite loosely.
I was really shocked earlier this week when community activist I went to high school with 'endorsed' Jill Clark based on his reasoning of 'I didn't like what I read on Griffith's website and Gildea is the incumbent.
Even though our politics diverge, I greatly respect his passion for and conviction in the work he does. So it was quite a surprise to see that endorsement from him. So since both the "informed", and the masses don't take the time to actually learn about the judicial candidates I'm completely in favor of appointment.
Post a Comment