just isn't enough to stop the mind control waves; blog post by John Hoff
Technically, this blog post should be Part Two of Part Twenty Five, or perhaps Part Twenty-Five And A Half; but there's enough insanity in this story already without Jill Clark's carpet-chewing madness creeping into my numbering system.
All the same, in Part Twenty-Five I was less than halfway finished with my analysis of the "steaming pile of crazy" document that attorney Jill Clark and her crazy coterie dumped on the federal court recently, a sort of "mass removal request" of Jill's current cases from state court to federal jurisdiction.
"The Document" ignores niceties like filing deadlines, and rules about who was the plaintiff who filed a lawsuit in state court to begin with, and mixes both criminal and civil cases together like oil and water. In the history of American jurisprudence, nothing like this document has ever been filed.
But that is not a good thing nor any example of creative and clever lawyering. This document (click here to examine it for yourself) is the cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs raving manifesto of a legal lunatic whose waning days as a lawyer are numbered, but not until she gnaws her name into the annals of dramatic "attorneys who lost their mind" stories to be repeated in law school Professional Responsibility classes with shaking heads and clucks of the professor's tongue.
Like the Roto Rooter man I must continue to snake my way through this incredible document, seeking out what horrible, reeking truths may be impacted within what an anonymous commenter dubbed the "steaming pile of crazy."
God help us all. Let us continue with Page 6, a listing of civil cases Clark is attempting to remove to federal court...
Oh, The Humanity!
The next cases on the roster are a rich vein of clients this blog hadn't heard about; new names to be added to the "roll call of the damned" roster of Clark clients whose cases are likely to perish from lack of lawyer attention as Clark deals with her own considerable problems.
"In Re The Child Of Andrea Lee Boyd-Prekker" seems to involve a guy named "Zachary Hansman" and "his constitutional rights." I've been unable so far to find any solid information about either of these names. Hansman, who is presumed to be a client of Jill Clark, becomes victim number 36 in the sinking of the S.S. Jill Clark.
Reginald Birts v. Farheen Hakeem, two cases. Based on prior association with Clark, Hakeem is clearly Clark's client in this case and, therefore, victim number 37 in the sinking of the S.S. Clark. Hakeem is pictured below on the left.
Now that I am no longer in the Green Party with Hakeem, I can share a comment one of my friends made about this photo:
"She looks like she's about to detonate herself."
Hakeem has history as an unsuccessful Green Party "also ran" candidate and was a witness in the "Backwards Toe Stepping Trial Of The Century" when Al Flowers sued City Council Member Don Samuels over an improbable assault that (so said the jury in federal court) simply never happened. As for what are these two cases are involving Reginald Birts, I am not sure at this point.
There is a "Reginald Birts" who resides in Minnesota and was the subject of a case in the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, click here for the ruling, which involved Birts appealing over "malicious punishment of a child" for spanking his daughter in a bank parking lot. Unknown if this is the same Birts.
Without providing case numbers, and describing these matters as "pending cases," The Document next lists "pending cases" with the Minnesota Department of Revenue "relating to" Hamline Trustees, Robin Magee, Jill Clark, Jill Clark PA, Jill Clark LLC, Jill Waite, Benjamin Myers, Dejvongsa and Myers LLC and/or the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
Picking through this mess, it should be noted Robin Magee is or was a client of Clark's who recently lost an appeal before the State Court of Appeals. Magee, a former law professor at Hamline, didn't pay her taxes for a number of years and was found guilty on four counts of failing to file a tax return. She appealed but lost in a 2-1 split decision. It doesn't appear Clark was the one handling the appeal. Here is a link to the ruling, click here. Magee lost her teaching job following the conviction. A couple months ago, she filed a case in federal court alleging a "conspiracy" to make her lose her job. Here is a tidbit of information about that federal case, click here.
A local lawyer who knew Magee from a few years back calls her a good professor who asked the kind of tough questions about zealous police and prosecutors that a liberal law professor should be expected to ask law students, and this local lawyer commented how it's a damn shame a lawyer as bad as Jill Clark had anything to do with Magee's case; since Magree apparently had enough facts on her side to produce one dissent at the appeals court level.
Magee is now listed as Number 38 in the "roll call of the damned" from the sinking of the S.S. Jill Clark. All the other lawyers listed are "presumed to survive." Magee has the rare distinction of being the only lawyer aboard the S.S. Clark to make the victim list based on what appears to be a higher degree of dependency upon Jill Clark.
The Morris Klock, Troy Parker and Patricia Saenz cases. These are names I already had on my roll call. The "Trisha Farkarlun" case is listed next, and I find myself asking, "Is that matter still alive somewhere in a court?" I thought this was an old and resolved case. I guess not.
As many readers will recall, Farkarlun was the woman who made a false claim of being raped by two police officers. After being convicted of filing a false report, she sued police anyway. The Farkarlun case(s) took some complicated twists and turns and I seem to recall her conviction was overturned based on a flaw in the law but I can't find a link to document that after CONSIDERABLE effort looking.
Few clients are as desperate and needy as Trisha Farkarlun, a vulnerable, mixed up person who has been led down the primrose path of litigation by Jill Clark and now, it appears, has become number 39 on the "roll call of the damned" as Clark's career sinks.
Notable Exceptions To The Massive Conspiracy Against Jill Clark
The next part of the document lists explicit EXCEPTIONS, cases Clark was NOT trying to remove to federal court. And so we find another glittering jewel of craziness in this reeking mass of lunacy; since when does a lawyer submit something to federal court to say, "I am NOT removing the following cases to federal court?"
This section is notable, however, because in talking about The Document, (and SO MANY lawyers are talking about it!) some have said, "Clark tried to remove all her cases to federal court." Strictly speaking, that's not accurate. Acting as though the court would issue some kind of emergency decree and order ALL of Clark's cases to federal court, Clark made a point of saying, oh, but not THESE cases.
The listing of these cases seems to be an indication by Clark that some of her cases are going well. Of course, how does that impact the whole "massive conspiracy against Jill Clark" argument?
There's a MASSIVE conspiracy against me! Oh, well, except for the following cases:
State v. Tamika Suttles, State v. Daniel Drljic, (the document says "2012 case," doesn't bother to list a case number) State v. Robin Magee (document says it is "pending at the Minnesota State Supreme Court," but is JILL CLARK still the attorney handling the appeal?) and State v. Trisha Farkarlun (document says "pending at the Minnesota Supreme Court")
Clark notes "this situation" (WHAT situation, exactly?) presents an "extraordinary circumstance" as described in Plouffe v. Ligon. Click here for the case Clark is citing. The case doesn't appear to help Clark at all but goes the OPPOSITE way and it's also not clear what the "extraordinary circumstance" is in the case she's citing, either. It's almost as though Clark cites the case believing it stands for something it doesn't stand for; not the first time this "wrongheaded citing" phenomenon has been observed in a Clark brief.
The lawyer in Plouffe v. Ligon was in trouble with his state disciplinary board but Clark is in even MORE trouble. And, by the way, I'm listing Tamika Suttles as Victim 40 in the sinking of the S.S. Jill Clark.
Jill Clark Against The Cold, Hard Universe
The next part of The Document asks for "injunctive relief" against, well, EVERYBODY but namely "the Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch, Hennepin County, Anoka County, Carver County, and the City of Minneapolis." It's not clear to me what Clark means by "Judicial" and "Executive" branches; is she limiting herself to state government or also trying to sue President Obama and the United States Supreme Court?
Clark characterizes her cause as a "civil rights case" and says she's being deprived of her constitutional rights. She wants a preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order, and a permanent injunction. Clark also wants to wear her favorite pajamas with the bunny feet and NOT to be sent to bed before she can finish watching Wonderful World Of Walt Disney. (OK, I'm kidding about that last sentence and, furthermore, some of those scenes in the Disney movie "Old Yeller" are too disturbing for little children to watch) (I'm just saying)
Clark, Whose Mental Clock Is Not Keeping Time, Is Right About Something Twice A Day
The Document throws out a claim that Minnesota's online court records system is not always accurate and corrections are not made when brought to the attention of the court. There may be something to this statement. Too bad it's Clark raising this valid issue amid all her loony isuses.
Clark's "Whine List" Or Is It A Manifesto For The Ages?
Clark next lists all the many things she holds against the court system and claims that state and federal "laws" exist (yes, she put quotes around "laws," albeit incorrect single quote marks) which make a violation of rights "merely by bringing the defendant to trial." Now clearly writing a manifesto instead of a request for removal of cases, Clark starts speaking directly to society's crazies and malcontents, listing her many issues with The System.
Malicious prosecution. Fixing cases. Conspiring to violate civil rights and aiding and abetting such violations. Fraud by insiders and favored people, but refusal to vindicate rights of Minnesotans who sue in court for fraud.
The Document lists as a grievance "Permitting fraud by government agencies and corporations, in particular financial institutions where millions and trillions of dollars are at stake, but putting Dan Aschemann and Tim Kinley5 into jail for small amounts."
Tim Kinley5 appears to allude to this character, YouTube video embedded below.
This article, click here, makes it clear Jill Clark is Tim Kinley's attorney or was acting in that capacity at some point. I do not know all the issues surrounding Kinley's case but one thing is clear: Kinley picked the wrong attorney for such important matters as springing his butt from jail and fighting for his right to teach the Bible and Ten Commandments to his children.
As The Document states in a footnote, "Tim Kinley does not have a pending state criminal case but seeks to enjoin the attempt to imprison him in a 'civil' case, 62-F1-96-000163."
Thus, Tim Kinley becomes Victim number 41 in the sinking of the S.S. Jill Clark.
The Document next alleges the named defendants ("the Judicial System," for example) have been "Conspiring to put those who protest the conduct of government in jail, prison, civil commitment institutions or mental hospitals, including for life." As if THAT isn't bad enough, The System has been "Failing and refusing to investigate police for crimes and/or charge them." Oh, wait, there's so much MORE. The System has been "Protecting the privacy rights of police and other government officials over their victims. The legislature passed a statute that prevents Minnesotans from obtaining the home addresses of public officials knowing that personal service of civil complaints is required in order to sue them, and in particular, knowing that in order to contest an election, the public official must be served in a very short time frame."
That last one is interesting. Once again, too bad it's CLARK.
Oh, wait, there's MORE! The document lists the following, and hopefully future "Revolutionary Tribunals" are filing this stuff away for show trials of the porcine oppressors:
Passing statutes that protect police. Passing statutes that injure Minnesotans. Passing a statute that moved the primary election closer to the filing date for office which makes it difficult if not impossible to win that primary in which the person who voted for the act in the legislature is defending their seat.
Clark lists Minnesota Statutes 629.34 and 629.33 (in that order) as particularly odious. These statutes involve when arrests can be made without a warrant and when force can be used during an arrest. Who knows? There might be issues with those statutes. Is Clark going to be the one to win that argument? Right now, Clark couldn't win an argument to get her Ipod charging cord from the "contraband locker" on a psychiatric ward.
The document goes on listing stuff like this in manifesto fashion. Is Clark trying to create a "legal issue treasure map" for lawyers who will follow in her footsteps while she's living in a truck camper in Sedona, Arizona, making wind chimes from well-bleached liquor bottles found in ditches and singing songs about her "spiritual journey?" It sure appears that way. This document never had a prayer of being approved for filing in federal court. Nothing has appeared on the federal PACER system to indicate it's been accepted for filing, let alone that any opposing counsel must respond.
Infamous Footnote Number 6
In law school, every fresh and bright-eyed student of the law hears about Famous Footnote Number 4, click here for further explanation. This document written on behalf of Clark contains what I would call "Infamous Footnote Number 6," as follows:
(Speaking in regard to the attempt to remove cases to federal court) A few clients have not been reached to consent but have not not consented, and filer notes that the Hennepin County Attorney recently removed a case without obtaining consent of all defendants before removing.
In other words, with SOME of her clients, Clark filed this crazy stuff on their behalf without really ASKING them or getting APPROVAL. This footnote BY ITSELF should be grounds for disciplinary action against Clark, and I'm not the only one who thinks so, I've heard that from an attorney.
Help, Help, I'm Being Repressed!
In an affidavit attached to the document, Clark makes supporting statements; some quite interesting and notable, like the part about how it's "literally dangerous" for Clark to appear before Judge Zimmerman and how she "fears even entering the Hennepin County Government Center."
To which this blogger says, "If your client Spanky Pete the Level Three Sex Offender isn't afraid to go to city hall and (recently) crash a soiree of high-ranking public officials, why should YOU be afraid to go to the Hennepin County Government Center and appear in court? What an exaggerating drama queen you are, Jill Clark. The only danger is to your client's cases with YOU acting as their attorney."
Here's the precise loony line from The Document for readers to contemplate:
A hearing is scheduled Monday in the case of Daniel Drljik, and it is set to be heard before the Honorable Lloyd B. Zimmerman. Attorney Clark has had bad experiences with that particular judge, and all attempts to have him removed from a file have been met with failure, but also sanctions and OLPR complaints. It is literally dangerous for Attorney Clark to appear before that Judge, and, with all candor, attorney Clark fears even entering the Hennepin County Government Center.
Blogger Johnny Northside helpfully adds:
Anybody who sees me at the Government Center is likely to fill out an affidavit saying I didn't appear to be sick, and that might undercut my "playing sick" while the disciplinary proceeding goes forward.
Help, Help, The Yzaguirres Are Being Oppressed!
The Yzaguirre family is singled out for detailed mention in the affidavit of Clark. Supposedly, "The family has been pummeled with false arrests, home invasions, retaliatory prosecutions and other harm by police since their Mother (sic) began criticizing police in her online newsletter, and associating with Attorney Jill Clark."
This blogger would like to point out it isn't ONLY the police being criticized in that online newsletter, The Mpls Mirror. This blog, The Adventures of Johnny Northside, is much more harshly criticized than the Minneapolis Police Department. Coincidence? I guess the only way to find out would be to remove all the criticisms of this blog and see if the (alleged) police oppression lets up.
The Document mentions BOTH of Nicole Yzaguirre's brothers (Eric and Jerome, click here for an article about them) were recently arrested. I have been unable to verify the arrests. But just for the sake of reader interest, here's a picture of Nicole.
FB photo, used under First Amendment Fair Comment and Criticism
The Document goes on to complain, yet again, about police entering Terry Yzaguirre's house to search for Eric Yzaguirre, (click here for an article about his recent legal troubles) and how police would have "had enough time" to take data off computers. The document notes that "for reasons not explained at length here" Terry Yzaguirre had "in her possession electronic data that provided a list of closed files for the law firm Jill Clark, PA and Jill Clark, LLC."
What does this mean, exactly? That Jill Clark gave Terry Yzaguirre one of her old computers without wiping the hard drive clean? That paranoid Jill Clark stashed electronic media at the Yzaguirre home? (What on earth would make Clark think anything would be SAFE there?) Or, most likely of all, Clark is just making up stupid things to try to create smoke about police (supposedly, which is less than allegedly) getting their hands on some of her old legal files?
Fear Of "A Myriad Of Retaliatory Acts"
The Document next lays out a whole bunch of things Clark says are wrong in Hennepin County. Police are allowed to "enter the room where original court records are kept in the Hennepin County Government Center, for example. (So what? Why wouldn't police be allowed to look at court records? These are public records. If they get access to these records more quickly and easily than, say, members of the general public, well, it's still "so what?") And, says Clark, mere clerks are supposedly issuing bench warrants, "body warrants," (sic) and search warrants for private homes.
To which Johnny Northside says, "I bet the clerks are doing A LOT of that work, and the judges are merely signing off, but it's still SO WHAT? The clerks function under the authority of the judge. Clerks also write and research judicial opinions; a fact that's a little surprising to many laypeople, but a routine part of the judicial system. Again, we're in the not-too-exciting land of 'so what?' except to a raving paranoiac like Jill Clark."
When Jill Clark found out these things (good heavens!) she says she felt, "intimidated, and in particular feared that if she made these accusations without being able to prove them unequivocally, that she would be subject to a myriad of retaliatory acts, including but not limited to being rebuked in open court by state judges, investigated or charged by the OLPR, or even charged with a crime." Clark then adds, in a paranoid parenthetical comment, "not because of any wrongdoing on her part, but because of the pattern of misusing those systems to silence those who voice the problems."
Clark Complains, Again, Of Disappearing Video
This wouldn't be the first time Clark has complained of video she claims existed or SHOULD exist. In the next part of the document, there is talk of trying to obtain hallway video from the Hennepin County Government Center. For some reason, Clark wanted to document video of the hallways "the Signing Judge had been presiding on on the date the complaint was allegedly signed." (sic) Why did Clark want this video? She explains in the next breathless, ranting paragraph:
Clark had successfully obtained video from the HCGC before. This time, Clark was aware that if the video showed that if the police sergeant (or for that matter the female prosecutor) had not walked onto the floor and down the hall to the courtroom at a time when the Signing judge was presiding there, that this was evidence of criminal conduct.
(It's not clear to me, either, WHY that would be evidence of criminal conduct. Maybe because some document said the parties "appeared before me" and Clark is alleging they didn't, that a proceeding actually took place by phone or something? Anyway, the document continues...)
Clark had a number of times stumbled onto criminal conduct in that building, and the results had always been very bad for her. When Clark ordered the video from Security (which is not in the same department as the Hennepin County Attorney's Office) she asked the security officer not to consult with anyone at the HCAO. When Clark went to obtain a copy of the video of the floor in question, she was told
1.) that the video recorder was "broken" so it had not recorded (curiously, pretty much the same parameters as the timeframe that Clark had ordered)
2.) The video machine had already been "sent out" so any ability to check whether it was really broken had been spoilated
3.) After having to literally cross examine him, the security officer finally admitted that he had talked with several people in the HCOA.
Aha! This proves--!
Well, what does it prove? That technology isn't perfect, but watch Clark literally try to make a federal case out of it.
(To self, thoughtfully, "Funny, when I wanted to get video of Spanky Pete trying to serve me with his worthless paper in the hallway during the Johnny Northside case, I didn't have any problems at all getting the video.")
The Temporary Manager Fiasco
I mentioned in Party Twenty-Five about Clark's problems with the email account called Temporary Manager and how Judge Peter Cahill told Clark that anonymous email accounts were not consistent with the ethics under which law firms are required to operate. In Clark's affidavit, Clark says the Temporary Manager has been accused of "practicing law without a license" and that another "disciplinary charge" may loom in Clark's future.
Too Many Clients, And Then She "Got Wanky"
And so it is we reach the end of the "steaming pile of crazy." Clark currently has 21 days from August 22 to "put up or shut up" about her alleged "disability" in her disciplinary hearing. I get the feeling there could be a pause, a hiatus in crazy Clark paperwork until the end of that deadline.
Will Clark's madness end with a big bang? Or will it be a case of "not with a bang, but a whimper?"
My prediction is that, in the final terrible moments, at the hearing to determine her fate, Clark makes a show of "firing" her legal counsel. She then gets unsteadily to her feet and (imagining she is giving a speech that will be depicted in movies 200 years from now, like she's the modern equivalent of William Wilberforce speaking before the English Parliament about banning the Transatlantic Slave Trade) Clark will deliver an hour long rant against the judicial system, police, state legislature, the OLPR and (with particular vitriol, flecks of spittle actually flying from her mouth) blogger Johnny Northside.
She will paraphrase Al Pacino, with affected self-consciousness, "You're out of order. This whole disciplinary proceeding is out of order."
And then what happens? She goes home. Without even waiting for a decision in her case, she begins packing; maybe for the Southwestern desert, maybe for Alaska, maybe for Israel. She goes far away with vague thoughts that after a couple years of personal recovery, she will perhaps write a book, start an organization, stay out of court rooms for a while.
It's far from over quite yet.
But it's starting to look like the beginning of the end of Jill Clark.
One insightful commenter who was talking to a local attorney, and cc'd me on the email, summed up Jill Clark's downfall this way:
I think part of Jill Clark's present disaster status was not saying no to some clients where all the bells and whistles said she should say no. That and too many files, too many filings, and she started getting wanky about what she filed, etc. Not necessarily in Moore v. Hoff, but the stuff John is finding and publishing now is in a way pretty sad. The problem, however, she did sadness to others, like John.
I am sure you have had cases where once into, you recognize them as being the "Why did I take
this" kind. They are unavoidable.
Clark seems to have gravitated to that kind.