I texted a friend of mine tonight and complained Jill Clark hadn't blogged in three days on her new and shiny blog. I was going crazy, I said, for some fresh Clark info.
"You're addicted," my friend texted back.
I said I couldn't help myself. It's like...
...watching an enemy ship sink, but then come nightfall you can't see the ship, it's somewhere out in the dark ocean. (I'm elaborating upon my brief text) The eyes and ears strain for the sound of explosions, screams, splashing, frantic shouts to lower lifeboats while the ship is still upright enough to control their descent, no, no, wait, they're not FULL enough yet, DEAR GOD LOWER THE LIFEBOATS BEFORE THIS DAMN THING KEELS OVER AND TAKES THE LIFEBOATS DOWN WITH IT!!!
I started searching the internet for more Clark info; for anybody else writing about Clark.
That's how I turned up the August 15 order by Judge John R. Tunheim remanding Clark back to state court, AGAIN.
Click here for PDF.
Of course, Clark doesn't want to be in state court and has begun "forum shopping" (or, in this case,
"forum shoplifting") trying to find a federal court that has a kind heart for strays, jurisdiction be damned.
(I hear Guam is lovely this time of year. Any time of year, really, it's a TROPICAL ISLAND)
The Tunheim order is a model of judicial restraint (what else would you expect from a federal judge) but still a peeved tone (I mean an HONORABLE peeved tone) comes through in sentences like, "Finally, the Court finds that Clark has not established bad faith, harassment, or any other extraordinary circumstance rendering abstention inappropriate."
Now, here is a very interesting sentence, "The Court also notes that, pursuant to this Court's August 2 order, Clark is prohibited from further attempts to remove the state disciplinary proceeding."
The Honorable Court clearly anticipated further loony attempts to remove the proceeding to federal court in MINNESOTA, a court that would have jurisdiction should the court find the need to exercise it if, for example, the law (Younger abstention doctrine) wasn't so clear.
(Much clearer than the plastic bag of nuts pictured above, and yet you can still SEE the nuts)
But doesn't Clark's attempt to remove her discipline case to a federal court in WISCONSIN represent a violation of this order? And if you are a lawyer who violates the order of a federal judge, well, what HAPPENS?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I guess we'll see how this plays out.
In the meantime, thank goodness, I got my fix of information about Clark's ongoing meltdown and, naturally, I've shared it with readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment