Jill Clark, videotaped above at a hearing regarding her suspension from the practice of law in Minnesota for psychological disability, was a devoted nemesis of this blogger and the North Minneapolis revitalization movement for years...until she lost a defamation case against this blog on appeal and then, not long after, had what can only be described as a mental breakdown and was suspended from the practice of law.
And THEN her husband filed for divorce.
The public hasn't heard much since. Clark's once noisy and prolific blogs screaming about conspiracy have gone silent and, being suspended from...
...the practice of law, she hasn't been making filings in her cases. Those cases are withering away and dying, most being causes no lawyer in their right mind would have taken in the first place. Clark's clients are loyal, however, and not one has sued her for malpractice. It is, however, unknown to this blogger if Clark has malpractice insurance and what it might cover.
This blogger hasn't tried to obtain documents from Clark's sad little divorce because the effort has not seemed worth the likely return. But every now and then something comes to my attention and I realize news value wins out over refraining out of, I don't know, sportsmanship.
There has been an order to appoint a guardian ad litem in the divorce case. Guardians ad litem are appointed to represent parties in court who are vulnerable and unable to speak on their own behalf; children, for example, and the mentally ill. The order in the case is dated November 18 and, well, it just didn't come to my attention.
Further proof, if further proof could POSSIBLY be needed, that Clark will not be practicing law again any time soon.
6 comments:
There is a civil filing First Minnesota Bank v. Clark, and also against her litigation entities, online, indicating a judgment; but checking for judgments failed to produce that record. Search Jill Clark as a party. You should get the civil filing docket info, but then try a judgments search.
Alright, enough is enough, she's mentally disabled and it is time to let her take care of her demons. I hope she turns her life around for her own sake.
Jill will be okay and I love her as a human being. She deserves a little slack. Take care, Jill.
Take care of her demons, you say? While she's "taking care of her demons" will her clients be taking care of their outstanding judgments? I'm thinking of clients like Jerry Moore who shouldn't have been suing people in court in the first place and now owe big, fat judgments because Jill was crazy enough to take cases that shouldn't have been taken in the first place. That's $3,700 plus dollars out of my pocket which can be laid at the feet of Jill Clark.
Regarding the issue a commenter is discussing about Jill E. Clark's outstanding judgments, I see a judgment against her by Wells Fargo:
Wells Fargo Bank N A vs Jill E Clark §
§
§
§
§
Case Type: Contract
Location: - Hennepin Civil
Judgment Details
Debtor(s) Clark, Jill E Creditor(s)
Wells Fargo Bank N A
MPLS, MN 55427
Entered Date: 08/29/2012
Docketed: 08/29/2012 8:23 AM
Orig. Amount: $22,575.17
Curr. Principal: $22,575.17
Judicial Officer: Klein, Joseph R.
Type: Judgment
Status: Active
Satisfactions
Note that shows 55427 as the zip code and it says "Minneapolis," but Golden Valley shares that zip code with a small piece of Minneapolis so this appears to be the right Jill Clark. The plaintiff is also familiar from her cracked and nearly incomprehensible filings in the Wells Fargo NA cases...
Then here's the Daniel Larkin judgment. He is known to be a court reporter.
Daniel M Larkin vs Jill Clark §
§
§
§
§
Case Type: Transcript Judgment
Location: - Hennepin Civil
Judgment Details
Debtor(s) Clark, Jill Creditor(s)
Larkin, Daniel M
Golden Valley, MN 55427-3236
Entered Date: 03/12/2013
Docketed: 04/16/2013 11:21 AM
Orig. Amount: $1,215.00
Curr. Principal: $1,215.00
Judicial Officer:
Type: Judgment
Status: Active
Very interesting. Looks like she stiffed the court reporter...
And looking at the First Minnesota Bank v. Jill Clark case...
WHOAH!!! I see what you're referring to and that's a huge judgment and quite recent.
And no, it doesn't show up on the "Judgments" portion of MINCIS just in the record of the case itself. I assume the other part of MNCIS has not been updated yet, though.
That's great info and I want to thank you very much. I am going to go blog about it right this red hot second...THANK YOU AGAIN AWESOME COMMENTER...
Post a Comment