The Madness Of Jill Clark, PART THIRTY-SEVEN, Sanctions Ordered For Clark As Result Of Saint Valentine's Day Motion, Clark Fails To Appear, And Cheese Heads Just Wanna Have Fun...

Stock photo, blog post by John Hoff

The Ship Bell Rang, It Rang 42 Times

Paul Hansen wasn't listed as an unlucky Jill Clark client on my "roll call of the damned," or even my revised roll call of the damned after Clark attempted to file her "steaming pile of crazy" document. But Paul Hansen is or was a client, all the same. On September 21 his attorney, Jill Clark, failed to appear in federal court to defend Hansen's interests in a lawsuit against, among others, the City of Newport, Minnesota.

The judge in the case ordered...

...Jill Clark to comply with discovery in 10 days and, further, defendants will get their attorney fees in bringing their motion. If Clark doesn't comply with discovery she will be subject to sanctions. Read judge's order by clicking here.

And, by the way, Paul Hansen is now Victim 42 in the sinking of the S.S. Jill Clark.

But Wait, There's More!

In another federal court case, which involves some "John and Jane Doe" clients, Jill Clark is getting slapped with actual sanctions. The order of the court is an amazing document, on the one hand reprimanding Clark and on the other appearing to beg her, between the lines, to get help for whatever spectacular "insane in the membrane" meltdown she is having. Click here to read the court's order.

The case involves 4 plaintiffs; two "John and Jane Doe" children and their parents. This brings the toll of victims in the sinking of "The Clark" up to 46. The defendants in the case--who are a police officer, a doctor, some nurses, a hospital--filed a joint motion for sanctions. Showing they have a sense of humor they filed the motion on Valentine's Day, 2012. Well, now all the love defendants have for Clark is coming home to roost. Clark is ordered to pay defendants' attorney fees in responding to yet another pointless Clark motion. FURTHERMORE, as though anticipating more cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs filings by Clark, the court has ORDERED that Clark not file anything additional in this particular case UNLESS given permission by the court and FURTHERMORE such permission should be sought in a letter NOT MORE THAN THREE PAGES IN LENGTH.

Making the public record, the court notes it was 21 months ago this very court entered a judgment in favor of defendants. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Clark asked for a rehearing en banc, meaning she wanted all the judges and not just a panel to hear the case and rule on it. Denied.



Defendant's were awarded their costs for the appeal. Then on January 16, Clark filed a motion to vacate judgment alleging "newly discovered evidence" and "fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct by opposing party" and the catchall "all other" justifying relief.

It was about a month later the utterly fed up defendants filed their "Valentine's Day" motion for sanctions. But then the court proceeds to document the usual crazy Clark stuff about having medical issues; oh wait, she's back; oh wait, she's got medical issues. The court noted that Clark's alleged "medical issues" hadn't stopped her from making a number of filings in other cases.

The Court noted Clark was working "selectively" on cases without adequate explanation to the courts or (opposing) counsel. The court notes that even as of the day of its (honorable) order, there has been no medical documentation about Clark's alleged, supposed, purported and said condition. The fact somebody calling himself or herself "Temporary Manager" was sending emails on behalf of Clark was brought up. The anonymous person offered to provide medical documentation and the Court said, OK, provide it. That was back on August 8. As of September 25, the federal court still didn't have documentation about Clark's condition.

They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha Ha

According to the judge's order, it was on September 18 that Clark tried to obtain an ex parte temporary restraining order to enjoin "individuals" from "monitoring, intercepting, or interfering with electronics owned or being utilized by Ms. Clark, including clients."

I am quoting what the order says, above, but what it MEANS is a mystery. The only individuals KNOWN to have interfered with Clark's use of electronics communication is her husband, who locked her out of email, phone and computer when Clark was reportedly awake for seven days straight. It is the impression of this blogger that the Honorable Court is deliberately avoiding mentioning the specifics of Clark's request, to give Clark a shred of dignity in her pathetically addled state. Indeed, this blogger would LIKE, at some abstract level, to have sympathy for Clark. But at a real and practical level Clark has made herself into an enemy of the interests of my neighborhood; or at least the decent people in my neighborhood; decent being defined as not a mortgage fraudster, not a Level Three Sex Offender, not a thug, not a slumlord. Clark's wrongs against my neighborhood are far too up close and personal for me to feel anything more than glee at her spectacular demise.

Where was I? Oh, yeah, the Honorable Court was being chivalrously unclear about who Clark was naming in her attempt to get a restraining order in regard to interference with her electronic communications. Clark reportedly emailed 3 times on September 18 via her iPhone, seeking the restraining order. The judge quotes from one of these emails as follows.

Clark has literally been living out of town based on what she views as legitimate fears for her safety, livlihood, (sic) and well being.

Thus this blog's only-half-joking speculation that Clark is holed up in a cheap hotel wearing a tinfoil hat and eluding her "minders" may have some basis in reality. Furthermore, consider the possibility that when Clark made filings in Wisconsin and Iowa, she was IN THOSE STATES AT THE TIME? After all, filing in a random state doesn't make any sense; not even to a lawyer whose noggin is half-cracked.

But if you were PHYSICALLY IN THAT STATE AT THE TIME, does that sound more like JURISDICTION? Oh, it's lunacy, of course, but we're talking about an addled LAWYER, here.

Like an elderly person with dementia who starts walking toward their idyllic childhood farm, (I can smell molasses cookies! GRANDMA IS THAT YOU!?) Clark in her demented mental state seeks a friendly venue.

How do you get yourself into a friendly jurisdiction? Go there. Get in a vehicle and PHYSICALLY GO THERE. But shhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Don't tell anybody you're THERE. What if they find you and take away your iPhone?

Just to be helpful, I might add THE NINTH CIRCUIT is notorious for being the most friendly, open, and liberal of all the federal circuits. And it includes Arizona. Winter's coming but in the Southwest desert you can live outside in a car. There's books you can read which will, supposedly, teach systems to play blackjack and win all the time.

I'm just saying.

Here's how the Honorable federal court in Minnesota responded to Clark's assertions about "literally living out of town."

Unfortunately, and some would say sadly, the content of the e-mail underscores the Court's concerns for Ms. Clark's well being. 

At this point, the court reiterated that an organization called Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers could help Clark, and the Court alluded to extending a "caring hand" to those who appear before it.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin Wants To Join The Fun

Incredibly, Wisconsin still hasn't dismissed the case Clark filed there; this despite a letter from the Minnesota Attorney General's Office urging dismissal. Yes, sure, give the Wisconsin court a day or two if they're going to dismiss, but in the meantime they're asking Clark to pay the money for the filing fee, click here for Wisconsin's order.

One of two things is happening, here.

The Court just really wants its money. Their view is, "If you're going to file your crazy crap in Wisconsin, we're sure going to get the filing fee before we dismiss." Their plan is to roll Clark like a drunk and see if the filing fee falls out of her pockets.

Or...

The Wisconsin Court is going to allow Clark to present evidence of the "conspiracy" against her out of a morbid sense of fun, a desire for spectacle, or just to dip the boring bread of hum-drum daily existence in the cheesy fondue of Clark's mental meltdown. Frankly, I blame myself. All that blogging about the spectacular sinking of the S.S. Jill Clark, an epic law career flameout that will be whispered about for decades, etcetera.

Oh, sure, these judges act all WISE and JUDICIAL and GRIM but secretly, in their chambers, they're reading Johnny Northside and feeling the fun.

Well, I say, FINE. It is the nature of a disaster to end up in some random and rural place; like Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper crashing in a snowy cornfield near Mason City, Iowa.

So bye, bye, Miss Litigation Pie/
Drove her lawsuit to Wisconsin/
But she could only cry/ 
Those good old boys wanted money to file/
Singing "This will be the place where you fry."

The final line of the judge's order in Clark's "Jane Doe" case shows mercy for Clark bound by stern adherence to a broader concept of justice; justice for the many defendants Clark has victimized in her One Woman Frivolous Parade Of Vexation.

Here is what the judge wrote.

The public interest, the interests of justice, and, frankly, the best interest of Ms. Clark, obligate this Court to enter the Order that it has. 

Sanctions! Sanctions for Clark! And how many more cases does Clark have alive in the courts where she won't be able to show, where the cases will just grind ahead? And who is helping her? It seemed for a while that some lawyers were helping Clark, but if they're still helping her then how did the "no show" happen in the Paul Hansen case?

Stay tuned to Johnny Northside for all the details. This ride is only bound to get wilder.