After having Spanky Pete's lawsuit kicked out of federal court and back to state court, this blogger and others were looking forward to a hearing in state court. It was hoped sex offender Peter Rickmyer's vexatious and frivolous lawsuit would be made to go away for good.
Well, turns out there will be no hearing. The judge in state court has simply dismissed Rickmyer's case without a hearing and will be issuing an order...
Jill Clark, whose law license was suspended the other day for mental health issues, was Rickmyer's attorney in this matter. In state court, Rickmyer is a Rule 9 frivolous litigant and not allowed to file stuff without an attorney. So he went out and found an attorney as crazy as he is (in her own special way) and, it appears, Clark more or less just "signed off" on Peter's rambling drivel. It can be hard, of course, to tell the difference between Clark's drivel and Peter's drivel. I would assert they are influencing each other's drivel. In any case, Clark was the attorney of record but the documents mostly looked like Peter's mad ravings, as distinguished from Clark's mad ravings, though there was a heavy "Clarkian influence" present in Peter's documents. But who can untangle such a can of worms? In any case, the state court didn't bother with a hearing and will issue its order in the near future.
Incredibly, Rickmyer also made a filing in federal court a couple days ago and then immediately withdrew the filing, saying the filing needed to be revised. I haven't had time to write about this more and will have to provide more details later.
It's been a tough week for the Crazy Town loud malcontents faction. Jill Clark was suspended for mental issues. And Peter Rickmyer got tossed out of court twice, and tossed HIMSELF out once.
What else could go wrong?
Well, turns out one more thing could happen: This blogger has decided on the new name for articles about Jill Clark now that MADNESS OF JILL CLARK has run its course and she's been suspended for mental issues.
The new series, as you can see, is THE LEGAL EXCOMMUNICATION OF JILL CLARK.
3 comments:
Clark surely was not rambling nor incoherent when she had you on the ropes at trial court level, pounding you on the body, pounding you on the head - and you having some trust in your codefendant. Before Godfread, before amicus attention. She represented Jerry Moore's financial best interests capably, possibly zestfully, at that point. Including turning Don Allen, however easy that was for her. The PiPress story about a triggering auto accident may have some credence.
Are you certain Clark was not rambling or incoherent at that point? I haven't read the documents or attended the hearing, but I do have first hand experience with the legal disaster which is Clark on another matter. For the entirety of that involvement, everything she put for was either incoherent rambling, completely off topic, ridiculous assertions, or some combination of the 3.
I would agree that she was 'zealous', but not in a "doing what's best for my client" kind of way, but more of a "I can't make the voices stop and am compelled to act" kind of way.
Law is a balance of zeal and real. There needs to be an element of pragmatism, not a pure religious zeal in the process. Good lawyers have to look at the facts of the case, and find a way to achieve the best possible outcome for their client. Which of Clark's clients have achieved a better outcome because of her arguments? Based on my own experience and what I've read here - none.
Based on the information I remember, when she represented "Dan Dan freaky cult man" for obstruction last spring - the whole thing could have been settled for $200 dollar fine. That would have been in her clients best interests; instead he ended up 10 days in jail and 175 bucks in costs and fines. A competent advocate should have been able to look at the facts, see that chances were very slim for a better outcome than a 200 fine. Especially since most lawyers actually practice as a means of making a living, and charge for their services and time.
Granted it is possible that a man who believes he was born with Down Syndrome and was healed by a prayer from his cult leader could be a difficult client to handle, so if we were to give Clark the benefit of the doubt it could be Danno’s refusals that prolonged the case into a 3 day trial. However, even going on that assumption, we could then find fault with her ridiculous strategies for proceeding with his defense – which was “Everybody is out to get poor defenseless Dan, it’s a giant conspiracy against him.” Yeah, that makes sense – what institution wouldn’t jump at the chance to persecute a nobody, for no reason, with the hopes of gaining nothing!
In a selfish way, I’m almost sad Clark is gone her “defense” and “advocacy” made all of the dealings with D-bag Dan very predictable, and more or less assured that every outcome would go “my” way. Now he may get a real lawyer; with the ability to craft actual arguments and defenses; that believes in his cause; and does not care if they get paid…. LOL, ok ok, now that I wrote it out, I’m pretty sure it will all be just fine….
mY FORMER ATTORNEY IS jIL@ c%^$K AND i'M IN WHAT SOME PEOPLE CALL A cult. not that attorneys pay any attention to deets like that.
Post a Comment