Jill Clark's Personal Mayan Calendar Comes To An End
So it's on like Donkey Kong. Most of the Johnny Northside target demographic will be reading these words around 9 in the morning tomorrow, about the time a dramatic, much-anticipated hearing will be getting underway to determine if attorney Jill Clark should be placed on "disability inactive" status in the course of her lawyer disciplinary hearing. The State Supreme Court will be the deciding tribunal and is expected to take the matter under advisement and issue a decision later. Given Clark's documented outrageous behavior and bizarre filings, I expect the court will move swiftly (weeks instead of months) and not, in effect, let grandma drive with her license a few months longer while the Department of Motor Vehicles figures out if she's dangerous, given her dementia and the one eye made out of glass.
If You Remove A Tree From A Forest And Nobody Sees It, Do Documents Made From The Tree's Wood Actually Exist?
In the meantime, Clark's representation of Rule 9 frivolous litigant and registered Level Three Sex Offender Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer hasn't been going so hot...
...and not just because Rickmyer wrote most of his crazy crap and Clark sort of put her imprimatur on it instead of making an effort to impersonate a real lawyer.
Here's what happened with the case, in which Rickmyer sues this blog and a host of others he alleges have done him wrong. It was on August 31 that Clark filed a document with the Hennepin County District Court purporting that Rickmyer's case had been "removed" to federal court. Never mind that such removal would be a violation of the rules of removal a number of different ways, Clark said it had been removed to federal court on August 10, here's the document where she says it, click here.
In spite of the "removal of no effect notice," everybody on the defendant side (my attorney, Megan Goodmundson acting pro se, the attorney for Hennepin County) was looking forward to a hearing on October 10 for a motion to dismiss. (The hearing had already been bumped up from July 17 because Jill Clark was, er, UNAVAILABLE)
But the day before the hearing, Honorable Judge Philip D. Bush was all, like, "OH MY GOODNESS. There has been a REMOVAL NOTICE FILED IN THIS CASE. I certainly can't be sitting in judgment in state court on a case that has been REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT and here I have this REMOVAL NOTICE (sound of paper being waved around) and this LICENSED OFFICER OF THE COURT, Jill Clark, says she removed it to federal court. Well, it's not my honorable job to investigate these matters so I have to take Clark at her word. The hearing is cancelled. I'm taking the whole office to Eddington's tomorrow for the bottomless bowl of soup!"
This produced consternation among the remaining defendants, to say the least, who were all geared up for a hearing the next day. This FELT like a dismissal but wasn't really a dismissal. The case was not in federal court but the judge was saying it wasn't in state court, either. At some level, it felt a bit contrived to have lawyers write letters to the Honorable Judge and say, oh, but your honor....it's not really in federal court. But what else can happen, here? It's not like judges should take on an affirmative duty to investigate whether a lawyer is telling the truth when she says the matter is in a federal court.
It was my lawyer, Paul Godfread, who stepped up to the plate and swung at this slow, perfect pitch, writing a letter outlining in detail how the case wasn't REALLY in federal court, even helpfully attaching a list of Clark's cases that DO exist in federal court. (Yeah, more on THAT later)
Click here for Godfread's letter to the court.
Godfread also provided a helpful list of reasons why the case couldn't be removed even if Clark had actually TRIED, which it appears she DID NOT.
Clark, You Have Some 'Splaining To Do!
Godfread's letter was dated October 10. It was October 12, very quick by justice system standards, when Judge Bush sent a letter to Clark and cc'd la-dee-da-dee everybody.
Click here for a copy of Judge Bush's letter which says, in summary, explain yourself and if you don't I will dismiss this case with prejudice. Ever mindful of the niceties of jurisdiction, the judge noted such a dismissal would not speak to the merits of any hypothetical FEDERAL case. And when I say hypothetical I really mean "made up and imaginary, never gonna happen" but I'm sure the judge wrote with a straight face and meant hypothetical, even though the word "hypothetical wasn't used." That's what he meant.
So Spanky Pete (who is a Rule 9 frivolous litigant and not allowed to file things himself or, seriously, he might get hauled off to jail that very minute, AGAIN) has until October 22 to explain what court he will be misusing and wasting the time of, state or federal. If Spanky goes with federal, the matter will be dismissed in state court. If Spanky goes with state court, there will be a hearing on dismissal. Either way, Spanky is staring down dismissal and then, well, attorneys need to be paid for their work defending against a meritless case.
But for now, the wretched thing is still alive. Nobody can keep a dead horse animated like Clark. Cases that were born dead walk, talk and sing Yankee Doodle Dandy for months on end in their morbid state of decay, animated by Clark, the mad legal puppet master of vexatious frivolity.
Repent, For The Hour Of Judgment Is Upon You
MNCIS shows some last minute filings in Clark's discipline case before the State Supreme Court. As previously noted on this blog, there was a director's memorandum in response to the judicial referee's recommendations. (September 25, I don't have access to that document) Some kind of correspondence arrived October 9, but MNCIS doesn't say who it's from or give any other info. If I had to hazard a guess, based on previous instances, I'd say it's Clark's paralegal, Peggy Katch, begging for a delay on account of Clark being indisposed but, please, feel free to perform your own guesswork. It's a free country with a First Amendment, no thanks to Jill Clark.
On October 15, there was a document with a long and interesting title, "Respondent's request for date certain to hear recusal motion and motion for remand to district court for reconsideration of probable cause."
That's a great title for a document. Clark's paper trail in the past few years (for which the Tree People will be indicting her for crimes against Tree-manity) is littered with the names of documents that have never existed before in the history of jurisprudence, and are not likely to ever exist again. But how many more uniquely freakish document titles will Clark create while she still has pixie dust loaded up in her fading law license? This document could end up being the very last one, or close! It's the end of an era. Collectors, snap this stuff up while you can!
Don't get me wrong, folks. Clark might still have a bunch of pro se documents left in her, and this blogger figures some of them might eventually be aimed in my direction, for such unique causes of action as "intentional infliction of truth" and "tortious interference with a crazy train in the performance of its lunacy" and even "interference with prospective delusional advantage." But this document filed by Clark (or possibly a lawyer on Clark's behalf, like Ben Myers) could be the caboose on a long and glorious crazy train.
I will almost be sorry to see its end. Not that I'll be sober enough to see it, considering all the drinks my friends will be buying me.
Where were we? Oh, yeah, putzing around in MNCIS for filings by Clark in her disciplinary slash disability inactive status hearing which is, like, in about ten hours as I write these words.
The very last filing on October 15 was "Respondent's Memorandum regarding referee's recommendations." Again, I don't have access to the document. But I'll venture a guess at what it says...
You're out of order! They're out of order! This whole hearing is out of order!!! Don't you see! It's all a show!!!
I am undecided whether I will be at the hearing or not. I have some old carpet staples to rip out and a VHS copy of The Blues Brothers that has about 15 minutes left on it for my viewing pleasure. I expect the hearing room to have creepy people lingering in the corners, their faces contorting as sparks of faint delusional hope fly through them, "Could Clark somehow, miraculously, oh could it be there's hope for Clark and my lawsuit...?"
Some readers have asked me how high, to what number will this blog post series The Madness Of Jill Clark go? To which I respond that if her law license is suspended, the odometer will turn over and we'll start at Requiem For Clark's Law Career, Part One.
I think we'll be rolling over that odometer pretty darn soon.