PART TWO, Jerry Moore vs. John Hoff a/k/a Johnny Northside Case Argued Before Minnesota State Court Of Appeals, Meanwhile The Ink Is Barely Dry On A Revised Lawsuit Naming Moore As Defendant, And Alleging Participation In The Mortgage Fraud At 1564 Hillside Ave. N.

Photo and blog post by John Hoff

For the back story on 1564 Hillside Ave. N., which led to identity theft victims Melony Michaels and John Foster filing a lawsuit against individuals allegedly involved in the fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N., click here for PART ONE.

Nope, Not Involved With That

It was the spring of 2009, and two important trials took place. One was the criminal trial which sent Larry Maxwell to prison. That trial was "wrapping up" in early April. In mid-to-late May of that same spring, the "True JACC" trial took place as rival factions fought over who was the legitimate leadership of the neighborhood organization. (Kip Browne's "New Majority" group, as it turned out, and the game wasn't even CLOSE)

There was a link between the two trials...

PART ONE, Jerry Moore vs. John Hoff a/k/a Johnny Northside Appeal Argued Today Before Minnesota State Court Of Appeals, As Word Reaches Me Moore Is Back To Being A Defendant In The Civil Suit Over Mortgage Fraud At 1564 Hillside Ave. N., In Which He Was INVOLVED, INVOLVED, INVOLVED...

Photo, Jerry Moore awaits word of his fate the night after he punched a board member of the Jordan Area Community Council, blog post by John Hoff

At about 11:15 AM today, while my lawyer Paul Godfread argued on my behalf at the Minnesota State Court of Appeals in my "tortious truth telling about a public figure" lawsuit, I was doing two of my favorite things at the same time: Blogging (in this case, about a candidate for State Senate named Troy E. Parker) and teasing out juicy info about my NEXT blog post, which is THIS one.

So I wasn't at the Court of Appeals. I wasn't even in the same state. I called to ask my attorney how it went, so I could write it up for my readers.

Write it up I shall, but the info I received late last night and earlier today is far more pressing...

The Strange Religious Cult Involvement Of Attorney Jill Clark's Client, Dan Faith Aschemann...

Creative stock photo, Afghan worker known as "Energy" poses in a Halloween mask he found in trash from an American base, blog post by John Hoff

It's scary, actually, how well-informed some of my anonymous blog commenters are, and what interesting nuggets of information they drop...


Recently, in the course of a blog story about "loon law" attorney Jill Clark and one of her cases firmly connected to North Minneapolis issues, an anonymous commenter pointed me to a current Clark case involving a guy named Dan F. Aschemann.

Aschemann is charged with 1.) Obstruct Legal Process--Lawful Execution Legal Process, 2.) Obstruct Legal Process/Interfere With Peace Officer, 3.) Disorderly Conduct.

Pretty run-of-the-mill stuff, right? Jill Clark is making a ridiculous epic battle of it, but then again Clark crosses the line between zealous advocacy versus lavishly wasting the resources of the courts almost every time she's in front of the bench. So Jill Clark is "pulling a Jill Clark" on some b.s. trifecta of relatively minor charges. There is nothing new under the sun.

But Dan Faith Aschemann's distinctive name, combined with his birthday, is a key that unlocks a vault of bizarre information treasures. Dan, you see, is involved in a freaky weird religious cult that, among plenty of other things:

1.) Has been accused of physical abuse of children, including an incident of "mass spitting."

2.) Was at the center of a massive web of bankruptcy, nine bankruptcy proceedings in four states.

3.) Has a weird hostility toward judges, accusing one judge of being like Hitler.

4.) Describes Christianity as a "death cult whose sole function is to eradicate those who refuse to be converted." They mention Protestant reformer Martin Luther in the same breath with Adolf Hitler.

The link to this Milwaukee newspaper article, click here, tells the whole incredible story of the cult, which is under the control of a guy named Avraham Cohen. Dan Faith Aschemann is just one of the followers, though the story of his divorce from a former cult member figures prominently in the article.

Obviously, this blog posts links all the time...well, this particular article is better than most; truly a Pulitzer-worthy effort by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Even if there wasn't a "Clark connection" to this cult, I would want to read this fascinating article.

Here is the link AGAIN, click here.

"Jill Clark's Aschemann" is clearly the same guy as the "the cult member Aschemann" based on information found in numerous court records. The "Milwaukee article" discusses how Aschemann was married to a woman named "Shushanie," who ultimately divorced him. (The former wife of Dan Aschemann may be the only person in the whole world named "Shushanie," judging by what my internet searching turns up)

Their divorce in Hennepin County Family Court became a public window into the alleged practices of the cult, including allegations of harsh and abusive child punishment, and therefore the divorce receives much play in the Milwaukee article. The divorce and custody case is 27-FA-07-214, entitled In Re The Marriage of Shushanie Esther Kindseth formerly known as Kindseth, Shusanie Esther. Custody of the children was awarded to the mother. The father was not allowed to involve his children with the culty weirdos unless the mother or the court agreed to it, and fat chance of that.

But keep your eye on that divorce and custody case. It's not exactly dead, and this may be how Jill "Conspiracy Theory" Clark enters the picture. The cultists, you see, scream a lot about conspiracy. If somebody doesn't grant them a building permit, or rules against them in court, or writes a critical newspaper article about them, it's discrimination, it's a conspiracy, it's all a devilish plot of the "Christian death cult." They are much put upon, these poor oppressed cultists with the massive string of bankruptcies and creditors all over the place holding the holy bag.

So who better to defend these misfits than Jill Clark? I mean, where does Clark FIND these clients or do they find her, dragging their poorly bandaged psychological wounds to her sympathetic doorstep in Golden Valley, speaking like Balaam's miraculous talking ass from the Old Testament, explaining how a terrible "meeting of the minds" has harmed them horribly and, oh, who but Jill Clark can peel back the complex layers and expose the oniony core of conspiracy?

It's not Dan Faith Aschemann's first trip to court, oh no. In 2004, when he was still married to Shushanie, they both went to court and successfully sought name changes. At that time they were known as Dan Faith Ritland and Shushanie Esther Ritland. They got the name change. Who knows what brought on this compulsion to change their name, but their cult leader likes to change his name, too. He has been known as R.C. Samanta Roy, and before that Rama Behera. (Assume any facts I cite about the cult come from the super-informative Milwaukee article, click here)

Aschemann was involved in a court battle with an entity called Lupient Leasing of Golden Valley, Minnesota. This appears to be a car leasing business. Aschemann has a judgment for $4,348.85. The cult leader reportedly wanted all the brethren to have flashy cars to give the impression of wealth.

In the Lupient Leasing case, Aschemann appears to have represented himself. In fact, he represented himself in the divorce, too, as did his former wife. Both Aschemann and his wife have been to law school, but Shushanie is a successful attorney while Dan, well, he's taken the bar exam three times since graduating from law school in 2004 but has failed every time. This is documented in a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision where Aschemann fights over his child support payments, click here.

By the way, Aschemann wasn't completely unsuccessful in his appeal.

In another case, Capital Alliance Financial sued Aschemann who acted as his own attorney but apparently didn't bother to fight. A default judgment was entered for $7,977.31. I see no evidence that it has been paid. There was also a lawsuit by "Butler and Allen, PA" which was cancelled. A notation says "party not served." The plaintiff in this case appears to be a law firm that specializes in fathers' rights.

Dan also has a court case and default judgment under his former name of Dan Faith Ritland. An entity called Palisades Acquisitions XVI LLC obtained a judgment of $6,459.51. This company buys up bad credit card debt and has been repeatedly accused of unscrupulous practices.

These are all the court cases I can find on Dan Faith Aschemann, a/k/a Dan F. Ritland. But remember how I told you to keep your eye on that old divorce and custody case?

Realizing the current criminal charges looked like some (purported) resistance against a legal process, I compared the date of the criminal complaint summons (5/20/2011) to anything happening with Aschemann's many other legal cases.

On 4/12/11, the judge currently assigned to the divorce and custody case (there have been SO MANY!) ordered a guardian ad litem to be appointed. I assume most readers know what this term means but, since it's half in Latin, I'll explain: this is an impartial person appointed by the court to represent somebody's interests who can't effectively represent themselves: a child, a nursing home patient with dementia, an insane person. That kind of thing.

The guardian ad litem made a report to the court on 5/23/11. These two dates bracket an incident that occurred on 5/20 or, arguably, could have happened a few days before but it took until 5/20 to file a charge. Who cares to bet dollars, doughnuts or I-told-you-so this incident stems from some kind of incident involving an unwelcome visit from the guardian ad litem to see what's up with the kids? Are they being kept away from the weird freaky cult like the judge ordered?

Even as I wrote this blog post over the course of a couple days, the criminal case against Dan Aschemann was decided. He beat two of the charges, but was convicted of Obstruct Legal Process, Interfere With Peace Officer.

Aschemann has been sentenced to 90 days in the workhouse, but 50 of the days are suspended for one year. Credit for 30 days, this gives him 10 more days to serve. These 10 days can be served as "sentence to serve," click here.

Aschemann was also sentenced to 1 year of supervised probation.

Obviously, Clark can be expected to appeal but with disciplinary proceedings currently taking place against her, it's anybody's guess whether she'll actually be practicing law in a week, a month, or a few months. A whole menagerie of legally deformed individuals have clustered around Clark. What happens to the rare and precious six-toed cats of litigation when Animal Control raids the premises of the crazy cat hoarder? Does anybody see how SPECIAL these cats are? No, all they see is lice, mange and malnutrition.

Whatever happens...expect the gory details right here on Johnny Northside Dot Com.

When "Jill Clark Speaks," we speak louder and more persuasively.

Spanky Pete Meets Defeat (Level Three Sex Offender Peter Rickmyer Manages To Lose Two Court Cases In One Day, Guess Who Is His Loony Toons Lawyer?)

Stock photo, skyway connected to Hennepin County Government Building, where you're very like run into Spanky Pete scuttling around like a crab, blog post by John Hoff

Peter Rickmyer, the Level Three Sex Offender whose frivolous lawsuits against the world at large ultimately resulted in his being declared a "frivolous litigant," unable to file lawsuits without a set of licensed lawyer training wheels being firmly attached to his bike of legal madness, got a double spanking recently along with his lawyer, Jill Clark. Two of Pete's lawsuits were brutally dismissed on April 5, and he can soon expect to be slapped with defendant Michael "Kip" Browne's hefty legal fees.

This "injurious lawsuit boomerang" result is eerily similar to what happened with Clark's clients in the "true JACC" case, and in the Bicking case, and in the Veches case, and the Gathje case.

Though not a resident of North Minneapolis, in the last several years Clark has managed to get her fat fingers in the pie of almost every prominent issue in our neighborhood, always to the detriment of the issue itself as Clark transforms dry legal proceedings into a stage for her own flaky vision of justice and wild accusations of conspiracies, the actual plaintiffs themselves be damned.

No surprise, therefore, that Clark hitched herself to Spanky Pete's raggedy-ass bandwagon when the law said Pete couldn't keep suing people without a licensed lawyer.

"Wait," Clark must have thought to herself. "I'm a licensed attorney! Well, for the time being, anyway!"

So let's examine precisely what happened with Pete's lawsuits, copies of which I received today by email. We'll start with the oldest lawsuit first...


In 27-CV-10-3378, Spanky Pete sued Robert Hodson, this blogger, this blog, attorney David Schooler, the Jordan Area Community Council, (JACC) Joel Pucely, Mike Martin, (the commander of the Fourth Precinct, some set of balls on this pervert Spanky Pete!) Scott Olson, John G. Hubbard II (known as PJ Hubbard) Ann McCandless, Michael "Kip" Browne, Briggs and Morgan, (David Schooler's law firm) Brandon Bartholemew, Jeffrey B. Newman, John Haddy, John Does 1-25 and Jane Does 1-20, (begin joke font) The So-Called Lord God Almighty, The Known And Perceivable Universe, My (expletive deleted) Parents, That Guy On The Bus Who Always Looks At Me Like I Might Whack Off In The Seat, My Little Dog "Foofy" Who Ran Away OR DID I ACTUALLY CUT OFF HIS DOGGY JUNK AND HE (expletive deleted) BLED OUT, and Evil Pete Who Lives In My Pants. (End joke font)

This is the case where Peter Rickmyer tried to have me served with his legal paper while I was in city council chambers at the Police Chief Dolan confirmation hearing and I miraculously escaped, then opportunistically left the state on a long truck driving trip. Spanky never did manage to serve me in that lawsuit.

That case was not only dismissed, but Rickmyer was declared a frivolous litigant, the litigation equivalent of a vasectomy. Notwithstanding the fact this case was dead, and Rickmyer failed to appeal in a timely fashion, Jill Clark (on behalf of Rickmyer) tried to get the district court to (basically) overturn itself and "vacate" the order. In this most recent ruling, the court said, in so many words, "We're not going to do that."

The court also spent some time addressing the fact that any correspondence this blogger may have sent, inter alia, to the court denying service had taken place did not (by any wild eyed stretch of attorney Jill Clark's feverish imagination) constitute a fraud on the court.

A somewhat humorous note here: I remember being out on the road, in a hotel room, and lacking a mailing envelope, lacking stamps...unable to procure these things and yet feeling the pressing need to inform the court...which kept, like, MAILING me stuff as though I were part of the loony proceedings...that I hadn't been served. I did have a stamped postcard handy. And so, (with an apology being the first line from my pen) I sent the Honorable Court an Honorable Postcard. The court record soberly records the postcard missive as "correspondence."

To Jill Clark I say: fine, the next time you or one of your sex offender clients want a postcard from beautiful, exotic locales so badly I'll send ya'll a postcard, but only if you SOLEMNLY PROMISE not to have a raving lunatic fit about it.

Of course, the fact Clark and Pete lost on the motion to vacate hardly matters. Their motion is simply a flimsy little foundation for an inevitable appeal. As one lawyer I spoke to explained, a motion to vacate the judgment was the ONLY POSSIBLE MOVE on this case.

This legal result was hardly a surprise. This case was so dead and buried it had dirt in its empty eye sockets. The second Spanky Pete case is much more interesting because, well, live things are so much more interesting than dead things.

(Spanky Pete voice: "But dead things are so much easier to control!"

In the second lawsuit, 27-CV-11-11012, State Ex Rel Peter Stephenson a/k/a Peter Rickmyer, once again Spanky Pete tries to sue the world at large. The lawsuit is against "Joan Fabian in her capacity as Commissioner of Corrections, and her successor, Tom Roy, in his official capacity." Also named are Will McDonald, (formerly the Department of Corrections "zoo keeper" for sex offender Spanky Pete) this blogger, Megan Goodmundson, Michael "Kip" Browne, and John Does 1-3.

It's a tough economy. Jill has had to cut back on John Does, and give up the Jane Does entirely.

In this case, Michael "Kip" Browne, an active citizen in North Minneapolis who was involved in taking back the Jordan Area Community Council from rampant mismanagement, resulting in the drawn out "true JACC" litigation (Jill Clark again!) led the charge against Spanky Pete. The other defendants pretty much drafted off Kip's legal moves. But once again, this blogger managed to avoid getting served because I just happened to get deployed to Afghanistan. Yes, sometimes my ability to avoid service amazes even me. From where did this hidden talent spring, I wonder?

Incredibly, though fully aware of the provisions of the Service Members Civil Relief Act, (SMCRA) Clark tried to bring a default motion against me, even though I've never been served in the first place and I was ALSO deployed to Afghanistan. This motion by Clark failed. And this most recent ruling upholds the court's Order Staying Further Proceedings Against Defendant John Hoff.

But, really, this is Defendant Kip Browne's special day, so let's concentrate on Browne, shall we? In this second lawsuit, Level Three Sex Offender Spanky Pete sued over having his "conditional release" briefly revoked and being sent back to prison for several weeks. Why was Rickmyer's "conditional release" revoked? Well, because after being declared a frivolous litigant, Pete still tried to serve legal papers on this blogger, a supposed "injunction" against this blog.

And yet somehow MICHAEL "KIP" BROWNE was supposed to be responsible for this? Part of some vast Northside conspiracy to make miserable the life of one poor little sex offender?

So Browne was left holding the legal bag while I lived the high life in a mud-straw-and-goat dung "qalat" in Afghanistan. I should feel bad Browne had to fight my battle but I wouldn't wish Afghanistan on a vicious, feral dog.

Through his attorney, David Schooler (who was a defendant in the PREVIOUS case, go figure!) Browne asked for a dismissal on the basis of Rickmyer's claim being barred by Heck v. Humphrey. That case can be summarized as follows: you can't file a "1983" civil rights case for false imprisonment when neither the terms of your release (from prison) nor the revocation of your release has been legally invalidated. Jill Clark attempted to argue that Heck v. Humphrey didn't apply...those arguments didn't work. Rickmyer couldn't even find a way to prove Browne acted under "color of law," which is absolutely necessary for a 1983 action.

(Spanky Pete voice font)

"But his name is BROWNE! That's a color!"

(End Spanky Pete voice font)

As the Honorable Court puts it so well, "Throughout the complaint Rickmyer argues, in conclusory fashion, a conspiracy among Browne and public actors to deprive Rickmyer of his constitutional rights." Here, "conclusory fashion" should be translated as "without anything to back it up."

At another point the court says, "Paragraph 22 is the very essence of a conclusory allegation because it contains no specific facts and rests entirely on speculation." This sentence can be translated as, "Look in a legal dictionary under the phrase 'conclusory allegation' and you will see a picture of Jill Clark."

And, in a sentence that Clark would do well to have tattooed on her forehead, "Contacting a public official to express concerns and invoke the authority of the public official does not give rise to a conspiracy..." And, in a footnote that would make another very nice tattoo in the middle of Clark's back, "Plaintiff's subjective belief that there was a conspiracy does not mean that there was a conspiracy."

Finally, Browne wins his attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute. So how much did Browne win? Though the exact amount is being determined, I strongly suspect that if you put the entire amount in single dollar bills, it would fill a small rowboat. In other words...

A boatload of money.

Finally, Rickmyer's attempts to sue me while I was serving in Afghanistan are handled by the court in a dismissive tone. It reads kind of like "the law protects soldiers serving overseas (stomp stomp) and Hoff is a soldier serving overseas (stomp stomp) therefore Hoff is covered by the law."

The last sentence of that section reads, "Further elaboration is unnecessary." Translation: Clark, how exactly did you graduate from law school?"

I must confess, however, it is thrilling to see my service in Afghanistan memorialized in a court order.

As always, an appeal is expected.

I pity the poor wasted trees.

Trouble, Woe, And Legal Heartbreak For The Family Of Anti-Northside Revitalization Blogger Terry Yzaguirre...

Stock photo and blog post by John Hoff

Woe! Woe to the house of Yzaguirre!

Terry Yzaguirre, who publishes the Mpls Mirror blog and seldom misses a chance to heap her harpie scorn upon individuals involved in the Northside revitalization movement, has family legal issues piling up like kitty doo doo in a neglected litter box. Not the least of her legal troubles is the fact "The Yaz" has Jill Clark as an attorney.

Clark is currently facing lawyer discipline charges and, in response, has started a blog that comes off as a final existential scream of legal existence as Clark's law career circles the drain hole.

Some background on the various legal cases would be helpful...



Brothers Jerome and Eric Yzaguirre were charged and convicted in the State of Oklahoma for having four pounds (!) of marijuana in their car while passing through the microscopic town of Caney in Atoka County. A gun was also found in the vehicle, and it was brother Jerome who took the fall over that.

In November, Eric was charged with domestic violence, click here for article. In a blog post published November 7, I wrote what turned out to be an eerily accurate prophesy:

-------------
This should be good. (Rubbing hands together)

Will Clark be alleging some kind of "conspiracy" against the dear lad for his mother's internet ramblings? Not unlike the deep and massive purported "conspiracy" against her other client, Level Three sex offender Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer?
-------------

Those words were published on November 7. It was the next day, November 8, when Jill "Conspiracy Theory" Clark filed a lawsuit on behalf of Eric Yzaguirre against Hennepin County and others. The case was soon removed to federal court.

However, that's the case on behalf of ERIC. There appears to be YET ANOTHER case in federal court on behalf Terry Yzaguirre, and her drug transporting spawn Jerome. It's not clear to me whether (alleged) thieving daughter Nicole Yzaguirre is a party to that case or whether some things that (allegedly) happened to Nicole are just part of the pattern of facts.

A rather even-handed summary of the federal case can be found on the Courthouse News Service, click here.

(It's also possible this is the same case that involves Jerome and somehow more plaintiffs have been added. I do not have access to that info quite yet)

And so it is we have some relatively minor alleged criminality literally becoming a federal case in the hands of Jill Clark.

So what's going on with the various cases? I don't have info on the federal case (or cases) but here's what's happening back on the Hennepin County docket.

First, in regard to the tragic Nicole Katherine Yzaguirre, whose cell phone records are at the center of the controversy (and conspiratorial allegations) in the federal court case.

Nicole is charged with offering a forged check (aid/abet GOC) The charge was filed February 15, 2012. On February 23, there was a warrant issued and, on the same date, a notation of "fail to appear at hearing." Is this more Clarkian legal brilliance and strategy? After all, if you don't show up...how can they try you?

Currently, a first appearance is scheduled on April 30.

Meanwhile, brother Eric is facing a felony theft of property charge. At least it seems as though Eric shows up at his hearings. (Mom!!! Eric's sitting on my side of the court bench! Mom!!! Eric's sticking out his tongue at me!!! MOM, ERIC WON'T SHARE THE DIME BAG!!!!!)

Brother Eric is also facing charges of Domestic Abuse No Contact Order--Violate No Contact Order from charges filed October 28, 2011. It appears a $5,000 bond has been posted. Now here's where we see Jill Clark's flakey personality stamped on the record of the proceedings.

Attorney unavailable for the hearing on 12/19/11.

Attorney ALSO unavailable for the hearing on 2/13/12.

To be perfectly fair, I know Jill Clark has been making claims of medical issues of a god-knows-what nature. (Liver issues from being a drunk, if I had to take a guess) I've been scrutinizing online court records for a long time, and NEVER have I seen as many notations of "attorney unavailable" as I have with Clark's cases.

Right now the hearing on this charge is scheduled for 4/23/12. We shall see what happens with THAT.

In addition to the charges of October 28, there is a raft of charges from another alleged "domestic" filed October 18, ten days earlier than the OTHER case. There is the same notation of "attorney unavailable" for hearings on 12/19/12 and 4/23/12 but, additionally, the attorney is "unavailable" for a hearing on 2/1/12.

When a defendant has no excuse except for "Your Honor, the dog ate my lawyer," Clark is the attorney you want to hire.

It's almost easy to feel sorry for Terry Yzaguirre and her drug possessing, accused-of-thievery, accused-of-domestic-violence, loon-for-a-lawyer having family.

ALMOST.

Not quite.

Anatomy Of A Loony Lawyer's Public FREAK OUT!!!! (Digging Into The Nuttiness Of Attorney Jill Clark's Cryptic Statements About Her Disciplinary Hearing)

Stock photo, blog post by John Hoff

On March 15, blogging from overseas, I wrote briefly about attorney Jill Clark's new blog project, named "Jill Clark Goes Wild" or something like that. My main beef with Clark's blog was it promises much, but delivers little. It was like being told "film at eleven" but then there's no film at eleven.

Specifically, Clark promised to post "documents" about her lawyer disciplinary hearing, which Clark mischaracterizes as an attempt to punish and silence a "judicial reformer."

Yeah, she's a judicial reformer...like Level Three Sex Offender Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer is a "professional landscaper" when he tries to make himself look socially useful by picking up litter. This is a case of the pot calling itself a remodeled kitchen.

I have to be completely honest here and admit...

...that line about "film at eleven" isn't my own creativity. I stole it from a little birdie who talked to me about Jill Clark. This isn't the same "little birdie" who used to feed me information about sex offenders, though. Believe me, the world is full of little birdies who love to twitter in the ears of bloggers.

Anyway, I posted my criticisms about Clark's blog on March 15. On March 17, St. Patrick's Day, Clark got behind the wheel of her blog and published a statement containing what certainly SEEMS to be a response, of sorts, to my pointed criticism that Clark isn't being forthcoming (like she publicly promised) about why she's facing a lawyer disciplinary hearing.

Clark wrote the following:

"Of course, in 2012, the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility publicly charged me with making ‘false’ statements about a judge. This series will be a march from 2002 toward 2012, with hopes that by the time I reach the present day, I can be telling you about what is happening now in my case (I’ll blog about why I can’t talk about the evidence yet, in upcoming blog)."

(JNS blog notes: Clark's incorrect single quote marks and awkward use of parenthesis are reproduced exactly as these appear on her blog)

Thin, Clark. Very unsatisfying.

Inquiring minds want to know...in NoMi. So let's put on our thinking caps, shall we?

First of all, it seems likely the disciplinary issue Clark is facing comes from a legal case and info about the case can be found online. I mean, it's highly unlikely Clark was walking the halls of the Hennepin County Government Center, with no particular case pending, and she just happened to run into a judge and in the course of a conversation she made some kind of statements that now have her in seriously hot water.

No, it's safe to say the disciplinary proceedings have spun from one of Clark's cases.

Of course, there's just so many cracked and crazy Clark cases that it's like digging through a dumpster to find one piece of garbage much smellier than the rest. Well, I guess I'm going to have to look at one file after another in this public forum and point out what's messed up about each case and then try to figure out whether THAT is the case.

Worse yet...it's always possible there's more than one case at issue. If I could just get to the Hennepin County courthouse to look at paper files, it would make my work easier but I'm still out of state for an indefinite period of time. Sigh.

Luckily, there's a little birdie who tells me time would be well spent examining the "Veches" case, more specifically known as Jeffrey Veches v. Officer Sean Majewski, Hennepin County Medical Center, Dr. Jay Lin, Dr. Joseph Clinton, EMS R. Kopka, EMS Koellen, John Does 1-3. This case was filed March 23, 2010. Summary judgement was granted not quite a year later, on 3-17-2011.

(Gee, that's one year to the day Clark wrote her blog post!)

Veches, who was the plaintiff, managed to end up on the losing end with a judgment against him for $1,630.70. Veches--whoever he is--got off lucky compared to judgments against some of Clark's clients, who start out as plaintiffs boldly "dishing it out" but somehow go whimpering home, their dish empty, in fact MORE than empty because now they owe a fat judgment. One need look no further than the plaintiffs in the "True JACC" Jordan Neighborhood lawsuit, though it's not the only example.

So it's not at all surprising to see one of Clark's plaintiffs end up being hit with a judgment instead of being victorious in court. It's not even surprising to see that plaintiff appealing. In fact, the Veches case is scheduled before a three judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012.

No, none of this is unusual in what some of us have begun to call the school of "Clarkian" legal thought, which might be characterized as "legal unrealism." See, "legal realism" is a legal philosophy that says your case could go one way or another depending on what the judge had for breakfast. But "legal unrealism" teaches us that a vast, hidden conspiracy is behind what the judge had for breakfast, and only the "brilliance" of Jill Clark can uncover this conspiracy.

But anyway...

There is SOMETHING unusual about the judgement in the Veches case. See, the judgement is not only against Veches. It's also against CLARK.

Tell me, how does a lawyer end up representing a plaintiff...and then judgment comes down against that plaintiff...but the judgment is also against THE LAWYER? It's kind of like, "Your client is guilty and must go to jail. And, by the way, counselor...you're going to jail, too."

Only the case is civil, so nobody is going to jail (what a pity!) it's just a matter of somebody owing MONEY. Unless the judgment can be overturned on appeal. We shall see.

So I'm hearing hints that Clark's lawyer disciplinary troubles MIGHT have come from something that happened in the Veches case. But right now I have no way to confirm that. Clark, who could simply explain all of this to her public, after trying to grab the public's interest with her meatless blog, promises in the future she will explain why she can't explain.

Whatever.

For what it's worth, I've been informed that a "Clark bar" doesn't contain nuts in the strictest sense. I mean, it does but it doesn't. It contains chocolate peanut butter. In other words, nuts reduced to such a fine consistency you can't tell at first glance the nuts are nuts.

But then you bite into it, chew on it a while...

Oh, yes. Nuts.

I am still trying to figure out who, exactly, is Jeffrey Veches and what was the nature of his lawsuit.

Readers who have info and can post links are encouraged to add to the discussion.

Attorney Jill Clark Freaks Out, Johnny Northside Answers (Wait, Did I Say "Freaks Out"? That Was Supposed To Be "Speaks Out." Then Again, Maybe I Got It Right The First Time...)

Random image from a shared computer, blog post by John Hoff



Attorney Jill Clark, (not pictured above) renowned in the Hennepin County legal community for filing truly loony lawsuits, has started a blog in the wake of a lawyer disciplinary lawsuit filed against her. "Jill Clark Speaks Out Dot Nutty Clark Bar Dot Com" or something like that.

I learned of Jill's blog from a reader who took the time to post a comment in a blog discussion about Jill's latest legal lunacy.

Many of Clark's lawsuits concern North Minneapolis issues, such as her utter defeat in the "true JACC" lawsuit in the Jordan Neighborhood, or suing Fifth Ward Council Member Don Samuels on behalf of "Mayor of Crazy Town" Al Flowers, another predictable defeat, or taking up the cause of slimy Level Three Sex Offender Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer. Clark seems to pride herself on jousting with the "powers that be."

Uh huh. Like a neighborhood board run by unpaid volunteers qualifies as "the powers that be."

The details of the lawyer discipline suit against Jill Clark are fuzzy. (See image) Furthermore, that lack of clarity isn't helped much by her blog which promises much, adopts a shrill conspiratorial tone about the "powers that be" who want to punish her for being a "lone soldier" in the cause of justice, a "strong oak" standing in a harsh wind, (I'm not making this crap up!) but Clark's blog actually delivers little in the way of facts.

For example...

...the very first blog posting of February 26, 2012 promises that Jill Clark will file an answer to the charges filed by the Director of the Lawyers Office For Professional Responsibility. She says the blog "will include copies of important documents and evidence." Clark even names March 2 as the date her answer will be filed.

Well, here it is the very Ides of March and yet there are no documents on the blog, just broad hints but little in the way of specifics about why Clark is facing discipline.

Meanwhile, trying to get a step ahead of those who would hold her to account for herself, in one blog posting after another Clark desperately tries to wrap herself in the red-white-and-blue mantle of "judicial reformer."

Uh huh. Yeah, like her client "Spanky Pete" is an "advocate for children." (Imitating Pete's voice: "These poor little North Minneapolis children are getting PTSD and somebody should be appointed to study it!" Slobber, slobber, rubby rub rub)

I hope to Almighty God the Lawyers Board takes decisive action and saves the public from this notorious legal loon whose numerous craptastic lawsuits have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years and--so it is reported--have actually impacted the availability for "Directors and Operators" insurance for neighborhood boards in the wake of the JACC fiasco.

Few lawyers--even criminal defense lawyers--can be considered a menace to decent society. But Clark is the exception. When Clark files a case, judges recuse themselves like toppling bowling pins.

But, my word, if Clark is disciplined, what will become of her clients? Does Clark have malpractice insurance? Is getting yourself suspended or disbarred in the middle of your client's lawsuit grounds for legal malpractice? What if no other lawyer will touch the case with a ten foot nutty Clark bar?

Of course, even if Clark lost her license, that wouldn't be the end of Clark. I would expect her to start filing "pro se" lawsuits on her own behalf, like her unsavory client Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer.

We wait. We watch. We salivate for information about Clark's fate. But very little of that information comes from where one might expect: Clark's blog which promises to "speak out" on the matter. Her blog is more of a public "freak out," lots of noise and emotion but it's hard to tell why she's havign a public fit. Delerium tremens?

COUNTER ARGUMENT: In the spirit of fairness, I will now say something postive about Clark's blog:

It isn't full of cringe-worthy spelling errors and typos like, for example, Don Allen of IBNN or the "brothers as dads" blog purportedly authored by the Yzaguirre brothers, two no accounts convicted of drug running.

The only mistake Clark consistently makes is using single quote marks where double quote marks belong.

Juvie Legal Troubles For Al Flowers, Jr., Son Of "Mayor of Crazy Town" Al Flowers (Guess Who's His Attorney?)

Stock photo (Afghanistan) and blog post by John Hoff

Photo obtained from some Facebook profile, published for purposes of First Amendment commentary and criticism, Al Flowers is to the right

Before I jump into this story, I'd first like to discuss something taught in schools of journalism called "news values."

How do reporters know what is news? How do reporters pick the stories which appear in, for example, dead tree media? (What most people call "newspapers?")

Well, it turns out there are principals for what is news and what ain't. For example, "bizarreness" is a news value.

Danger, violence, unsafe things that happen...in short, "if it bleeds, it leads." Conflict is a news value.

"Prominence" is another news value. If the president sprains his ankle, it's news. If the mayor of Bum Frack, Mississippi sprains his ankle...well, it's only news in the Bum Frack Daily Herald.

Another news value is "timeliness." So let us consider the situation we have here. Suppose you work for a newspaper and you're covering the mayoral race in Minneapolis. One of the (lunatic fringe) candidates has a son, and quite some time after the mayoral race this son is in some kind of juvie legal trouble, charged with "simple robbery."

But you don't find out about it when it happens...which is long after the mayoral race, anyway.

In fact, you don't find out until the whole legal process is mostly over and done.

If you worked for "old media," (the kind that requires vast financial resources to put newspapers in news racks all over the city, vast streams of advertising revenue to drive around with a fully equipped news van, etc.) and your criteria was "timeliness," you would ignore the story about Al Flowers' son having legal troubles. It was "news" when it happened, but having found out about the hearings long after they happened...it's not timely.

So here's this hot piece of information, and you (the dead tree media) are going to ignore it, because publishing it will make it appear as though you don't know everything important right when it happens.

Oh, sure, if Al Flowers ran for mayor again, down the road, and you were writing a story about Al Flowers...you might slip in the old information about the son being charged with simple robbery. Yeah, just slip it in without drama, like you didn't miss the hot story when it was good and timely and had just happened...



But blogger media has no such pretensions. If I think the information is interesting to my audience (and, really, when ISN'T "Mayor of Crazy Town" Al Flowers interesting, whether he's disrupting a JACC press conference or unsuccessfully suing a city council member or even holding his own press conference at the imaginary intersection of Broadway and Colfax) then I'm going to publish the story.

As a blogger, I don't put on an elaborate pretense of media omniscience. I'm perfectly free to say, "Here are some interesting online court records that touch on North Minneapolis. Too bad I'm in FREAKING AFGHANISTAN and can't view the actual paper court files so I can further flesh out the story."

And I'm perfectly free to say:

Holy cow. I was looking through some online court records, seeking something else entirely, when I stumbled on Al Delano Flowers, Jr's online juvie court records.

(The records appear when I do a "search by attorney" and search under Jill Clark, who has represented the senior Al Flowers repeatedly. Why juvie records can be accessed like this, I am not sure, but the record appears on a government website and that makes it a fair-and-square public record)

The junior Al Flowers was involved in two juvie court cases, 27-JV-10-2130 and 27-JV-10-3197.

The first case began on 03/09/2010. The second began on 04/13/2010.

In the first case, Flowers pled "not guilty" to simple robbery, but was "adjudicated delinquent." (The system doesn't use emotionally scarring terms like "guilty" in a juvenile proceeding) In the second proceeding, he was charged with simple robbery and attempt to commit simple robbery. He was adjudicated delinquent on both counts.

In the first case, detention was ordered, (03/09/2010) and "interim conditions" were imposed, which were:

Attend school regularly. No contact with victims. Remain law abiding. Make all future court appearances. Obey home rules.

(I'm guessing that last one was the easiest of all)

Release was ordered on 3/19/2010, which would seem to mean young Flowers was detained from 3/9 to 3/19. There was a court trial on 4/26. There was a motion to dismiss that same date. There was a "probation referral notification" on 4/29. (Keep in mind the OTHER court matter with the other docket number started on 4/13, so it appears one thing may have gotten tangled up with the other thing)

Findings and an order were filed on 6/4. Incredibly, there was an "Order for DNA Analysis." (What was THAT all about?)

An order was filed on 6/11.

On 7/13 there was a "Notice of Appeal."

A warrant was issued 08/26/2010. The warrant was quashed on 10/18. There was a discharge from probation on 7/28/2011.

Examining the other case, the one filed on 4/13/2011, there was a remarkably similar course of events (except no mention of DNA testing) and the matter was appealed. Electronic home monitoring was "stayed pending appeal."

The last action in the case took place on 8/4 and 8/24, when there was a "Request for Trial Court Record--Appellate Court" and "Other Document."

The mother of Al Flowers, Jr. is listed in the online court record as "Patunya Cofield." Her name comes up online as the branch secretary of the Minneapolis NAACP in 2005.

She is named as the wife of Al Flowers, Sr. in this March of 2000 "City Pages" story, click here.

The result of the cases in the Court of Appeals is unknown.

Attorney Jill Clark Represents Off Again, On Again Attorney Jill M. Waite (Oh, How The Empire Of The Jills Has Become A Shadow Of Its Former Self!)

Stock photo and blog post by John Hoff

Once upon a legal time, Jill Clark and Jill M. Waite were known as "the two Jills," click here for Star Tribune article, iconoclastic lawyers who liked to "shake up the system."

The fawning, starry-eyed Star Tribune article I've linked to, above, obviously wasn't aware of Jill M. Waite's habit of not filing or paying income taxes, a bad habit which cost Waite a five month suspension from the practice of law in June, 2010. The most screamingly funny part of the disciplinary hearing against Waite has to be this line, right here:
------
The referee also noted that Waite failed to respond to electronic and other messages and orders that she had admittedly or obviously received and rejected Waite's claim that her conduct was caused by “post-traumatic stress disorder” or “computer phobia.”
------
Yeah, that's the problem with "shaking up the system." The system becomes very aware of who you are, and little stuff like not filing or paying income taxes comes to the attention of "The System."

Presumably, Waite served her suspension and is practicing again since it's been a lot more than 5 months. However, how interesting that Waite is being represented by Jill Clark in a "conciliation court" matter...


According to online court records, Waite is in conciliation court against a guy named Airizes Samuel Miller of Edina. Waite is listed as the defendant, represented by Jill Clark, leading this blogger to ask: if Waite is back to being a lawyer again, why does she need a lawyer?

Airizes S. Miller's distinctive name turns up on two other cases:

Village Park of Bloomington LP vs. Airizes S. Miller, 27-CV-HC-08-9955, which is listed as an "eviction action."

His name turns up again in this case:

Amy Radford vs. Airizes Miller, Terry Roemhildt, Michelle Roemhildt, Visions Real Estate Holding Company, Inc.

Neither Waite nor Clark is an attorney in either of those two actions.

Miller seems to have two court actions against Waite, which are 27-CO-10-7490 and 27-CV-10-28394. These cases are related, one stemming from the other. Bryan Ray Battina is the attorney for Miller in both.

The first case, chronologically, is the "27-CO" case and starts with a "statement of claims and summons" on 9/21/2010. I've never even SEEN a court docket number that has "CO" in it, but it appears to stand for "conciliation court," a kind of legal proceeding where the goal is to get both sides to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya."

Since Waite's suspension started in June of 2010 and was for five months, this claim starts in a period of time while she was suspended. It's not a wild guess to suppose this case may be brought by a former client but there's no solid proof of that.

The "27-CO" case resulted in an "Order for Judgment," followed by a "Demand for Removal to District Court" and then an order vacating the judgment. So much for singing Kumbaya. The order to vacate judgment in "27-CO" took place on 12/13/2010, then the "27-CV" case, listed as a "conciliation appeal," begins on the same date of 12/13/2010 with a "Demand For Removal/Appeal."

The "demand for removal" appears to be "removal" to the district court, not removal of a judge. But when the case was assigned to the Honorable Judge Robert Blaeser, there was an "order for recusal." One of the parties filed to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning they're broke and would like to avoid court fees.

Which party was it? That's not clear.

Judge Abrams was assigned, and there was another order to recuse. The case is listed as "Open" and the last thing to happen with the case was a notice of assignment to the Honorable Judge Ann Leslie Alton on 10/21/2011.

Another question that arises would be: Is Jill M. Waite back to practicing law? To answer that question, I took a spin through the cases where she is listed as attorney, keeping in mind the pivotal dates: June of 2010 through October 2010, when she served her five month suspension from the practice of law.

When using the Minnesota Courts website, more recent cases tend to appear at the bottom of the list, but you can't depend on that completely. Cases drag on forever. How do you define "recent?" Recently filed? Recent activity? Here are some recent cases I examined to try to answer the question: is Waite back to practicing law?

1.) Jill M. Waite, representing herself as her own attorney, filed a lawsuit against Elizabeth and Lloyd Olson of Colorado Springs. The case was filed March 5, 2010, some months before the suspension. There was a default hearing in May. There was a notice of judgement in July. Keep in mind, however, the Olsons had no attorney and were Pro Se. Even a suspended attorney is allowed to represent himself or herself as an attorney.

This case does give me one nugget of interesting information: Jill M. Waite is listed as the lawyer "Retained" on this case even though she is representing HERSELF. This means that in the "lawyer discipline cases" I wrote about in another blog post, where Jill Clark is listed as "Retained" for the anonymous lawyer in question, Clark COULD be representing herself and the online record would still say "Retained."

2.) Aleksky Derevyanko v. Joyce Butler, an eviction action where Waite represented the plaintiff. This thing was over in 2009. No clue here.

3.) Cara O'Keffe v. Wesley Villagas, filed in 2008, completed in 2009.

4.) Same deal with a divorce involving a couple with the surname "Lenius." Cases listed above this one are even OLDER.

So it would appear Waite hasn't been the attorney in a civil, family or probate case since she represented herself against Olson during the period of her suspension. What about CRIMINAL cases? That's a different part of the online court records. Let's check THERE.

1.) She represented a guy named Douglas Lee Lawson in Burnsville over a domestic, which was dismissed. That case was completed in 2009. It appears at the bottom, the most recent case on the list.

2.) Martha Pekarek Winter. Accused of failing to stop for a stop sign. And pleaded GUILTY. What did she even need an attorney for? This was over and done in a single day, 08/06/2008.

3.) All cases listed above the Winter case are even older than 2008.

Despite the face the suspension was only five months, despite the fact it is now one year and six months later, I see no evidence that Waite is practicing law again. HOWEVER, she could be practicing in another state and I don't have evidence for or against that possibility in front of me.

In any case, however...

Standing at a distance, because of the fear of her torment/
Saying, "Woe, woe the great city, Babylon, the strong city/
For in one hour your judgment has come!

How the Empire of the Jills has fallen and become a mere vestige, a ragged remnant of a past glory! It is terrible to look upon. My eyes! Oh, my eyes!

If the Star Tribune wrote an article today about the two Jills, if it wrote one several months from now, the story would be a cautionary tale for young lawyers, an epic legal tragedy. Set yourself up against "The System," and you better file your tax returns, you better answer the messages of your clients, and you might want to avoid going out of your way to piss off and upset judges with abrasive mannerisms.

The System has your name and number. The System knows where you live. The memory of The System is long, its reach is far.

The System doesn't forgive. The System doesn't forget.

Look upon the object lesson of The Two Jills, and take warning.

Last Desperate, Pathetic, Choking Gasps Of The "True JACC" Legal Appeal As Attorney Jill Clark Whines For Delay On Account Of Illness...

Stock photo (Hennepin County Government Center) and blog post by John Hoff

The "True JACC" lawsuit which was fought over who was the legitimate governing board of the Jordan Area Community Council was concluded quite a while ago, and yet that worn out old tire still has some tread left on it.

After the Honorable Judge Charles Porter ruled the plaintiffs in that action brought "some or all" of the lawsuit "not in good faith," an appeal was filed (Court of Appeals No. A11-1198) and the case that never seemed to end...still never seemed to end.

But now the sad, desperate, "not in good faith" little legal action might be winding down to an anti-climactic conclusion...


It took a long time for a copy of the Appelants' Motion to make its way to me here in Afghanistan along with used shoes for Afghans and chocolate covered expresso beans for the nights I pull sentry duty, but make its way to me it surely did. In the motion of September 27, 2011, Jill Clark begs piteously for more time on the basis of two factors:

1.) She's still waiting for a ruling on a motion requiring her clients to purchase an additional transcript. (To which I say: Yes, transcripts are expensive, but you mean to tell me that FIFTEEN INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS can't manage to come up with enough jack to just purchase a transcript? I guess it's not so easy to come up with money when you don't have a neighborhood organization to financially rape, and I say "financially rape" based on the results of the forensic audit)

2.) Dog ate my homework.

OK, I'm kidding. Clark emphatically cites some unknown medical condition which has laid her up, and caused her to have "surgery." The oh-so-mysterious malady isn't named, leading one to wonder (maddeningly) what on earth could it be?

Clark is a self-admitted alcoholic, who even published a maudlin musical album called Songs For A Recovering Planet. Clearly, however, there isn't any sort of surgery available for being a boozehound.

The mystery deepens.

Lacking any ability to transform the documents in question to a PDF, it will be necessary for me to reproduce the text wholesale, along with occasional caustic remarks like, for example, when Clark mentions her "staff" that would probably include the "chat line rapist" who (at least as of the date of the JACC trial) worked in her office.

The word "para" replaces "paragraph symbol" in original text. Boldface and italics have not been replicated.

Ready? You might need ear plugs for this, there's some pretty serious whining...

APPELLANTS' MOTION TO EXPAND TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

MOTION

Respondents filed a motion in the trial court seeking to require Appellants to purchase additional transcript. The Trial Court has not yet ruled on that motion.

(JNS says: "Respondents" means the other side of this appeal, i.e. the side that won and doesn't need to appeal, specifically the "New Majority" board members of JACC that included, for example, Michael "Kip" Browne. The Appellants in this action are the loooooooosers, which would be Jill Clark's clients who sued over control of JACC. So when you see "Respondent(s)," mentally substitute "winners." When you see "Appellant(s), mentally substitute "loooooosers.")

Further, Appellant counsel has encountered medical issues and has had to be on medical leave, which will continue (but hopefully come to an end soon).

FACTUAL STATEMENT

District Court yet to rule on defense motion for more transcript

On August 9, 2011, the Honorable Charles A. Porter heard oral argument on the Defendants' motion to require plaintiff-appellants to purchase additional transcript for thsi (sic) appeal. (Clark Aff. para 2) Appellant counsel's office has not received any ruling from Judge Porter on that motion. (Id.) See also the Register of Actions at Clark Aff. Exh. 1.

(JNS says: THE DOG, esteemed members of the Appeals Court! A big, vicious, bitey dog with teeth like the gates of Hell that went chomp, chomp, CHOMP and there went Algebra! English! Scared Straight Teen Challenge Class For Boozehounds! The aforementioned dog or dog-like creature--it may have been a wolf!!!--clamped down his mighty jaws and with shakes of its head did rend, rip, TEAR the homework in question!)

(But oh!!! As though this was not horror enough!!! Contrary to all laws of nutrition and the expected behavior of dogs as opposed to, inter alia, GOATS, the fearsome creature proceeded to wolf down--I say again, WOLF DOWN--my homework, even pausing to take its long, pink tongue and lap up every papery scrap! Not only do I seek an extension for the completion of my homework but, my goodness, MEDICAL LEAVE for post traumatic dog-eating-homework stress disorder!)

Appellant counsel medical leave

In early September, Appellant counsel went out on medical leave, which was extended. Although Appellant counsel returned to work part-time, she was unable to work a full week last week due to issues. Yesterday, Monday, September 26, 2011, the plan was for Appellant counsel to be in the office part-time.

(JNS says: WHY ARE YOU PUTTING A HYPHEN IN "PART TIME"? CRIPES!!!!!)

However, an unanticipated medical emergency caused Appellant counsel to leave the office to seek immediate medical care. By the time that was concluded, she was unable to work any more that day (and staff had left).

(JNS says: Presumably at least ONE of the staff went home to brood over his dark, utterly unfulfilled sexual fantasies)

Appellant counsel is now scheduled for surgery on Friday, September 2011. (Sic) The occurrences yesterday could not be anticipated: with deep apologies to the Court, Appellant counsel was simply unable to draft a brief yesterday, or even a motion to expand, or a motion to restore oral argument. (Clark Aff. para 3)

(JNS says: I'm all confused by the use of the term "medical leave." Isn't Clark in practice by herself? Especially with her "partner in crime" Jill M. Waite suspended. So who would be the authority to grant this "medical leave" other than Clark herself? And, in that case, can't she grant it any time she wants?)

ARGUMENT

Appellants originally requested, by motion, until October 15, 2011 to file their brief in this action, due to the district court not having ruled upon the defendant-respondents' motion to require plaintiff-appellants to order additional transcript. This Court granted the motion, but only extended the time to brief until September 26, 2011. Although Appellants greatly appreciates (sic) the extension of time to file brief, the Register of Actions for the district court case shows the motion for more transcript to be "under advisement." If this Court would like the Appellants to brief this appeal before the district court has ruled on the issue of whether the plaintiff-appellants should be required to purchase additional transcript, please let us know.

Appellant counsel apologizes to the Court for any inconvenience.

(JNS asks: where is your apology to the DEFENDANTS for all the cost and inconvenience caused by an action the district court ruled wasn't even brought in good faith?)

(We now return to Appellant's gripping explanation of how the dog ate her homework)

Just before leaving the office for medical leave, Appellant counsel drafted a number of motions for extensions of time. She had already drafted the motion for more time in this appeal (citing that the district court had not ruled), so in a desire to get those motions out the door that final day of work, she did not add in any details in this case about her medical leave.

(JNS says, Translation: Yes, I attended a full day of school after the morning of the dog-eating-homework incident and I said NOTHING about the incident, but that was to avoid inconveniencing my teachers, thinking I could somehow RECONSTRUCT the homework in a timely fashion. Now, finding the loss of the homework to the dog overwhelming, I am compelled to tell you these alleged and purported facts)

Obviously, the leave occurred, and was extended.

(JNS says: How is that "obvious?" Where is the evidence other than your say-so?)

Appellant counsel's staff worked diligently to file all prepared documents in a timely manner, but there were days that Appellant counsel was not available to monitor that filing (and those days were not anticipated). It was for the reason that the motion to extend was filed one day after the date the brief would have been due if the trigger was the already-filed transcript. (Clark Aff. para 4) It would appear, now, that it would be important to resolve the issue of whether the district court is going to order the purchase by Appellants of additional transcript.

(JNS asks: How does whether or not another transcript needs to be purchased have ANYTHING to do with the arguments you need to make in your brief? You may as well tell the court you need a delay until it's determined whether somebody can validate your parking outside the court house, one is as relevant as the other. Furthermore, since the piece of crap you filed was ruled "not in good faith" by the district judge, is there even any DOUBT about which way the ruling will go about whether your clients need to pay for that transcript? Also, I would tend to think the long, dark shadow of "not in good faith" extends even to the arguments in this motion, counselor, particularly when those arguments bear a "separated at birth" resemblance to "dog ate my homework.")

Further, it is the understanding of Appellant counsel from the hearing on this issue, below, that the defendant-respondents intend to file a motion with the Court of Appeals if they are not successful below. (Clark Aff. para 2) It appears that there was no actual delay in the appeal due to the filing of the first motion to extend. Pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 134.01, Appellant seeks reconsideration of the striking of oral arguments for this appeal. This is a case where Appellants believe the Panel would benefit from oral argument.

(JNS asks: Would that be "not in good faith" oral argument like the case itself? I tell ya, if the court isn't even interested in hearing oral argument, that says a lot about which way it's going to go)

Appellant counsel's medical emergency of yesterday was not anticipated. As much planning as possible has occurred with regard to the medical leave. But as a solo practitioner (whose staff are working overtime to accommodate the medical leave), sometimes there is no one else to do the work.

(JNS says: And let's not forget how Jill M. Waite, who was the other half of "the two Jills," has been suspended from the practice of law. Heck, I saw a case just the other day where Jill Clark was acting as Jill M. Waite's attorney! More on THAT later. But maybe a lawyer involved in solo practice should be prudent and not take on so much work, particularly when the cases are of such a cuckoo clock nature that no other attorney would pick up that ball should it happen to get dropped)

By the time Appellant counsel was done with her medical appointment and was able to turn her attention to this motion to extend, staff was gone, and Appellant counsel was unable to work.

(JNS says: I was all alone, the only sign of another living presence being the muddy tracks of the dog that ate my homework, which were washed away by my bitter tears before I could take a picture for evidence!)

With deep apologies to the Court, this simply could not have been anticipated.

(JNS says: Could the fact the lawsuit you're trying to appeal was filed "not in good faith" have been anticipated? Could this be an example of the legal principal "karmus et un bitchum"?)

Appellant counsel has now been scheduled for surgery, and hopes that after a brief recovery she will be able to work full time. (See Clark Aff.).

(JNS says: Biting. My. Tongue.)

Conclusion

Appellants respectfully request until October 15, 2011 to file their Opening Brief as they do not know when the district court will rule, and it appears that Respondents would also file a motion on that topic at the Court of Appeals Level.

(JNS says: Jill signs the document with her psychotic "drooping tumor" abstract signature which bears no relation whatsoever to the name "Jill Clark.")

Clark's affidavit in this case is more of the same dog-versus-homework b.s., except some of the b.s. is worded differently, as follows:

I am now scheduled for surgery on Friday, September 30 for surgery. (Sic) I apologize, but I was unable to draft a brief, or motion to expand, or motion for oral argument yesterday once I returned from the medical provider. I am hopeful that with this final diagnosis, that the surgery will clear up the remaining medical issues and I will be back at work full time in the near future. In this timeframe, however, my ability to draft large documents has been impaired.

(JNS says: We've seen your large documents. How much more "impaired" could you possibly be?)

Appellants do seek oral argument in this case.

(JNS says: If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride)

Appellants should not be penalized for my medical leave.

(JNS asks: Should they be penalized for not filing in good faith?)

The medical emergency of yesterday was not anticipated, and although I anticipated needing to request an additional extension of time to file brief (not just due to the medical leave, but also because the district court has not yet ruled on the transcript motion), I assumed I could easily draft that second motion to extend in half a day.

(JNS says: the medical emergency was YESTERDAY, and you wrote all this crap TODAY, and yet there's a bunch of OTHER crap you just weren't capable of writing? Oh, you can write SHORT crap, but you just can't write LONG crap. Uh huh. What did this dog look like, again?)

I just did not anticipate what befell me, or my inability to be productive after medical care.

(JNS says: Your definition of "productive" leaves much to be desired in the eyes of the defendants against whom you filed this "not in good faith" action)

I have done my best to address all deadlines while on leave, but on certain days this was simply not possible.
.........................................
JNS says: What? The chat line rapist couldn't help you draft stuff?

I did go and check the online court records and found there were orders in this case dated October 12 and October 19. These orders may pertain to the issue of whether defendants have to pony up for another transcript.

Also, it appears the defendants in this case each share a judgment of $15,000 plus $40,887.37, for a whopping total of $55,887.37. This is the thorny end of the primrose path that Clark led her clients down, and now she's all, like, oh I'm sick--! I can't do very much--! Don't blame my clients--!

Well, perhaps the clients should blame CLARK. What competent attorney brings a case which causes the court to say, "This case was not even brought in good faith"?

And so it appears the fat lady has not yet sung, but she is puttering around with the pages of her sheet music, and taking some deep breaths.

Stay tuned. No other blog or media entity has documented this "Northside neighborhood sea change" lawsuit like the Johnny Northside blog, no other blog has paid so steep a price. This blog was there at the beginning, this blog will be there at the bitter, apocalyptic end.

Damn Right We're Appealing--And The Appeal Has Been Filed!

Photo by a comrade-in-arms, blog post by John Hoff

God bless America, God bless the First Amendment, but may God ESPECIALLY bless my attorney Paul Godfread who--according to emails that reached me here in Afghanistan--filed an appeal in the Johnny Northside "To Tell The Truth" non-defamation court case. The case has been the subject of commentary all over the nation and, indeed, even in England.

Even though Paul Godfread did the lion's share of the work, I'm told there were others who assisted him. Sooner or later, they will all get a personal thank you. In the meantime I just have to...

...keep my helmet on when I'm pulling sentry duty, and keep my head in the game. The game is not back home in the courts, the game is right here in Afghanistan.

In the photo, above, I'm holding a small town newspaper mailed to me in a care package from one of my relatives. The little structure over my right shoulder (viewer's left) is a bunker meant to protect from "indirect fire" like mortars. The little huts are called "beehive huts" and are living units for soldiers made of plywood, metal, and waterproofing spray foam. Each soldier has about as much living space as the average American bathroom.

One of the "qalat" towers is visible. A qalat is a traditional Afghan fortress made of sun baked mud, straw and (rumor has it) animal dung as the secret ingredient. Of course, calling it a "fortress" doesn't completely translate.

Almost ALL Afghan dwellings are built inside these "qalat" fortress compounds. Their society has known endless warfare since before Alexander the Great, and their building methods reflect that.

God bless America.

JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: Attorney Jill Clark Takes On Lawyers Board Of Professional Responsibility...

Stock photo, blog post by John Hoff

Attorney Jill Clark doesn't live in North Minneapolis but has involved herself in a number of North Minneapolis issues, including lawsuits against this blogger and rising to the defense of Pete "The Pedophile" Rickmyer, a notorious bane-in-the-backside to the Jordan Area Community Council. The decent people who live in North Minneapolis and want to improve their community always have to wonder, "What kind of crazy legal b.s. is Jill going to file next?" Of course, the City of Minneapolis has to wonder the same thing and has spent a fortune defending itself against Jill.

Oh, and her clients. But it's hard to tell. It feels more like Jill doing her own thing, and the clients be damned. Exhibit A: The "Old Majority" clients in the JACC case, who have been slapped with legal fees.

Now an interested "court watcher" has pointed this blogger in the direction of Jill's latest cases: taking on the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility on behalf of some allegedly bad lawyers. Here is the case information, as I found it in the online database...




62-CV-11-6138 In re Investigation of Lawyer 2011-1 vs Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility 07/22/2011
Ramsey Civil
Guthmann, John H. Civil Other/Misc.
Open

62-CV-11-6139 In re Investigation of Lawyer 2011-2 vs Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility 07/22/2011
Ramsey Civil
VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. Civil Other/Misc.
Open

62-CV-11-6233 In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against Lawyer 2011-2 07/25/2011
Ramsey Civil
VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. Civil Other/Misc.
Open

The "board numbers" on these complaints--"2011-2," and "2011-1," tell us they were filed early in 2011. They were, in fact, the first two cases filed that year.

So, we have to wonder, who are the bad lawyers? Could it be Ben Myers, whose cocky head hasn't popped up in quite a while? Could it be Ben's law partner, Dokor? Ben AND his law partner? Could it be some lawyer whose shenanigans are unrelated to North Minneapolis politics, and therefore not that interesting to this blog?

Inquiring minds want to know. But of even more interest is the fact attorney Clark would take a case challenging--oh, my word!--the very body which dishes out lawyer dicipline in the State of Minnesota.

Those who speculate and opinionate about these matters have the following theory: one day in the very near future, Jill is going to find herself facing a series of well-crafted complaints against her filed with the Lawyer's Board of Professional Responsibility, mostly involving filing bogus legal crap. And Jill probably knows that.

So, just like Jill filed a lawsuit against City Councilman Don Samuels on behalf of Loon-At-Large Al Flowers after Flowers shoved Samuels at a public meeting--shoved Samuels in the back, while cameras were rolling, and the next day, incredibly, it was FLOWERS suing SAMUELS--the theory may be the best defense is a good offense.

Move quickly, RUN RUN RUN to put oneself in a position where any board dicipline can be spun as a political vendetta or payback for taking on these cases.

What a fascinating little web is being woven, here. Can anybody get to those case files and tell me more what they are about?