Monthly Archives: January 2013

Demand to Cease and Desist

I have been writing motions, memoranda and appellate briefs for some years. I am not an attorney who parrots black letter law. I am fairly creative in the way I come at issues, and I have come up with a number of ideas over the years, and authored them in those types of documents.

I have been required, in the representation of clients, to file these with court administration.

I have engaged myself in areas of the law, in which my clients are demanding that the situation be re-assessed in order to afford them justice. Repeatedly, for about 8 years, I urged the Minnesota Court of Appeals to find the obstructing legal process statute was overly broad. My idea was eventually adopted in a published opinion, State v. Morin, in which Matthew Johnson represented the criminal defendants. It was easy for me to tell that it was my idea. I had fixed that idea in a tangible medium: a court-filed memorandum, and then an appellate brief.

I assume Matthew Johnson: 1) got paid for writing the appelate brief(s); and 2) enhanced his reputation with a published decision in his favor.

Take heed that that was based on intellectual property owned by Jill Clark.

I also authored a brief in Zanders, filed in federal (D. Minn. on ECF) in around 2006. I know that the lawyer from Briggs who was representing Crawley at the MN Court of Appeals (in State v. Crawley), took material from my Zanders brief fild on ECF.

Take heed that that was based on intellectual property owned by Jill Clark.

I, Jill Clark, hereby demand that all courts, court administrators, court clerks, lawyers, staff, e-filing systems, and any server on which my IP is resident, cease and desist the use of my IP.



5.  The so-called “order” says at the bottom that C.J. Gildea took no part.  Is that accurate?  I am publicly asking the Honorable Lorie S. Gildea whether she had any part in that “order.”  HEARING NOTHING I will assume she did.  (No more refusing to respond to your public.  If you do not respond by the end of the business day tomorrow, 5 pm, your public will be entitled to presume that you have involved yourself in this case, and in that particular order.)

It is after 5:00 pm yesterday, so the public is entitled to assume what is noted above.




Update: April 8, 2013:

***Following is some of the original January 16, 2013 post*** (Also note that some text was put out there that I did not authorize. More on all of this later…)

I had real difficulty scanning these documents.  I think that should be investigated.  It’s almost as if someone can see what I am about to scan, and reacts.  The screen was black again, but when I “b’d” about it out loud, the screen turns on.  Then the first scan has to be “cancelled” (slowly me down, but not enough to prevent this post) and then out of three scans, only two came to my email inbox.

Jill Clark_20130116_195704

The above box I printed off the Campaign Finance Board website (I don’t think it’s there any more), and at least to my analysis, this shows serious campaign finance issues by Lorie S. Gildea in the 2008 election.

For one thing, the docs I printed off show that her campaign took money from at least one district judge.  But ethically, a judge cannot take money from someone she supervises.  It’s clear the Supreme Court is the supervisory court of all lower courts in Minnesota.

Also, there is clear “advertising,” because there are so-called campaign contributions, but then the campaign just gave the money back.  This occurred (showing in the documents I printed out) between the District Judge’s association and Gildea’s 2008 campaign.

But here’s the biggie.  Money is speech.  Given the above, Gildea was endorsed by other judges, and endorsed other judges.  That’s an ethics violation.

I filed a challenge to the 2008 election in Ramsey County (the appropriate spot) in June 2012.

It was served upon the Chief Justice by the Chief Judge of Ramsey County, Kathleen Gearin.

In response, however, I got a letter from someone at least claiming to be the Commissioner of the MN Supreme Court, stating that that person had done some research and determine that the document had not been served on opposing counsel so it was not going to be filed.

I have a problem with court staff who report to Lori Gildea, doing research used to bump out the door a challenge to her candidacy.  That’s a conflict of interest.

Jill Clark_20130116_195717

The above doc is a scan of a motion to recuse Lori Gildea, that I filed February 2012.  Was this received by the entire Supreme Court?  Was it ruled upon?  I don’t see a record of it being ruled upon.

The motion also noted a problem with Rule 28 allegations by Craig Klausing, and it asked to have the status of important evidence changed so that Clark’s speech would not be prior restrained.

Is this was not ruled upon, why was it not?  Who is responsible for intaking motions and getting them to the proper judges?

There has been a lot of damage to Clark’s reputation since February 2012, and to the 2012 election, due to the prior restraint of speech.

Here’s the letter from Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin.  Note that she indicates she served the challenge to the 2008 election upon the Chief Justice at the MN Supreme Court via certified mail.

I also need to note, however, that in the final paragraph, there is a statement for which I have substantial evidence as to the honesty either of Gearin, or of her staff in relaying information to her.  Since I cannot tell at this time where that lies, I must, in furtherance of my duty, make this complaint about Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin.

Gearin letter

Did the Supreme Court receive the following motion?  I never observed any ruling on it, although recusal motions are routinely dealt with before any other matter.

Signed final motion to recuse all 7 justices

I also need to report something disturbing.  I specifically packed the paper version of that document in my trial pack and placed it in the back of my car.  The car was in the garage at my home/office.  Now, although I looked, I cannot locate that paper version.

I believe this should be investigated.

Also, it seems that the Campaign Finance papers I had in that same spot were a lot thicker yesterday.

Isn’t Gildea responsible for ensuring that all members of the Supreme Court follow this email policy?


And if she received an email from a district court judge that violated this email policy, didn’t she have a duty to report that?

What if the email from the district court judge said this:

Hi Lorie.  I just saw that Jill Clark and Debbie   Hedlund both filed against you…I’m so sorry!!!  Let me know if there’s anything I can do to   help!  Lucy.

[LW 177].

As I was attempting to locate another copy of the “recusal” motion I filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court in July 2012 (and which that Court never ruled on; by the way, I mentioned that it was not being waived, in the October 17, 2012 oral argument, I wonder if that part made it onto the video), I went onto the D. Minn. ECF system.  There, I looked up 12-cv-1373 docket, and found a few problems:

1.   Docket 10, ORDER REMANDING the case to state court had ORDER in red, and REMANDING in bolded black, so they stood out.  I have not seen that before in any other docket.  I challenge anyone to cite me to another case in which that occurred.

2.  The exhibit to the re-removal petition was difficult to locate because the system wanted to charge me over $9.00 for those three exhibits (which were filed by Clark) without any indication of which was which.  As uploading-user-attorneys, we are urged to put information about each exhibit into the system.  Why would that information not be available to users?  Further, I can’t even look at the document to determine if I want to purchase.  The system requires me to first pay for it, and then view it.  That’s just too expensive for the public law (especially when I filed those documents myself, when there are suspicious going on around the recusal motion (Judge Tunheim did referenced it in his order), and I want to be able to compare the ECF-filed version with what I have left in my office).

3.   I downloaded another copy of the June 15, 2012 order (docket 10).  But I can’t tell yet what’s going on there.  I have seen a couple different versions of that order (including a different font, which is wierd), and that bears further investigation.

Attached as some screen prints.

Jill Clark_20130116_210122

Oh, by the way, I took pictures of the colored ORDER REMANDING on the ECF site, and emailed the pictures to my inbox.  However, I’ll note that the i-pad had some issues with the order of the data, and the functionality.


photo 2

photo 3

Here’s a so-called pdf of the so-called June 15, 2012 order of the Honorable John R. Tunheim.


Notice that is has a number, like the numbers given automatically by scanning machines (but note that the same docket 10, when I downloaded it about 1/2 hour later, had a different automatically-generated number).  I took a couple of pictures of that order, the second showing up close the number as it appears when you “dowload” that so-called pdf.

photo A

photo B

I was just trying to compare two versions of the June 15, 2012 order.  The one downloaded this evening really didn’t work, the pdf “mechanism” wobbled and would not let me go to page 2.

At the bottom, it as blank (like a blank last page).  I also got an error message I don’t recall receiving with actual pdf documents.

Here’s a copy of the so-called Clerk’s letter.  No signature on it.  Otherwise, I’m not going to comment.

Tunheim letter

(That’s just a shorthand name for it, I’m not suggesting he wrote it.)

photo C

photo D

photo E

photo F

photo G

photo I

photo J

Also included above is the so-called remand order after the re-removal.  That also has an automaticly-generated “pdf-type” number.  The second visit to that site tonight netted two docs with a different formula for the automatic numbering (different from the 6/14/12 order downloaded earlier).

Here’s the second remand “order.”


One of the pictures of a screen, above, shows that the system charged $.60 for an order, which should have been free.

D. Minn. ECF used to make courtesy emailed copies of documents free for 30 days.  Then it was shortened to 14 days.  I wonder why that was.

Where does the money go that is collected for “public” documents viewed on ECF.

A lawyer who does not pay the PACER bill pretty quickly can actually get shut out of ECF, which is funny, since members of the public can view it.

At one point ECF users were notified that the media could sign up for distribution on ECF files, and that we would not know if they were registered for that distribution.  Why does a private attorney have to be registered (showing email address publicly) but the media does not?

Which media were signed up to get these orders, and where are their copies of all of the different versions of these orders.  Surely that is a repository of evidence in this regard.

Also, where are the electronic versions of these types of orders kept?  Surely the one available through ECF is not the only copy.  There would, somewhere, be a word (or wordperfect) doc showing the date it was prepared (and last edited) and the author.

Further, if that really is a real signature of the Honorable John R. Tunheim, there should be a paper version somewhere, or at least a version with signature blank that was digitally signed.

1.  Was it digitally signed?

2.  Or was it signed on paper and scanned?

Because the digital data is inconsistent in this regard.

tunheimm order in 1874 case

ENJOIN order


A second, second removal case was filed, and above are orders from my firm’s server from that case file.  Note how the name of the Judge Tunheim order in that file says “show temp” instead of a machine-generated number.

You can also compare the other orders to ones above.

This WordPress doc keeps doing funny things.

I got this doc off the MSBA website.  This was pre-White decision.  It’s like the MSBA did an about face once on notice of federal law:


Here’s another copy of the propaganda piece the MSBA was distributing about elections v. appointments:


Here’s a copy of part of the Hennepin County policy manual the 2008 version (I have not compared this yet to see if someone has monkeyed with it).

Manual from Henn Cty Court 2008 lW 400 plus

Here is a copy of a letter signed by Klausing and Cole:

Letter Juy 31 2012 from OLPR asking Tunheim to remand

The above was in my files, off ECF, and purportedly written by lawyers Klausing and Cole.  Based on my experience with them, and the dearth of their knowledge or removal/remand law, I don’t believe they authored it.  I am hereby making a complaint about Attorneys Klausing and Cole because I have a substantial evidence of dishonest on their part (I cannot go into all of it here).

Following is the disavowal by two Court of Appeals judges when they were endorsed by the Republican party post White.

Halbrooks G Barry and Harten disavow Republican endorsement

Here is a copy of the motion to recuse all 7 ,members of the MN Supreme Court.

Exh 17Signed final motion to recuse all 7 justices

The above was in a different file on my firm’s server, and it’s the recusal motion filed with the Supreme Court which I am publicly asking whether they got.

tunheimm order in 1874 case

ENJOIN order


Tunheim order

tunheim order remanding

Tunheim letter


2010 Affirmation – Signer and nonsigners



This is the Affirmation that the MSBA and others were pressuring lawyers in this community to sign post US Supreme Court White decision:

Affirmation 2012 version

This was obtained from a link sent by the MJB:


Twice now, I have attempted to upload the 2011 Report to the Community.  This is after I commented on this blog that the MJB distributes via computer confidential data which should never be disseminated to other branches, let alone quickly.

Twice, this blog software has not uploaded it.

I have been loading numerous documents today, but also for the past week.  I have not had this occur before.

box at msba for searching for addresses

Brennan institute summary of minnesota commentaryt

bylaws of the MSBA

I haven’t compared these with the paper I scanned this evening, but this was in a different location:

gildea reports to MCFB






Kent Gernander memo to the Lawyers Board, Martin Cole communicated via email that this was Gernander’s personal report (not verbatim), which I found to be a curious point until one considers that there might have been wind of a lawsuit at that time:

KG 10-23-07 memo

From MSBA site:


From MSBA site:



This is what was prepared regarind the challenge to the 2008 election (which was returned unfiled by the Supreme Court Commissioner):

notice summons Raichert





Following is a sample of the quality legal work we get out of the statutorily-required composition of an advisory committee.  This committee recommended pretty much doing away with PC hearings in lawyer disciplinary matters.  Probably because that group will never get charged so they just want to speed it up for those attorneys who are targeted:

Supreme Court Advisory Commitee Report do away pc hearings efficiency

Following are pictures of things I saved to my firm’s system thinking they were documents, but these strange files appeared.  I now am curious as to why these types of files would be online, and whether they could harm a computer system.

This one’s from a website purporting to be of the DOJ (based on information learned later, I now challenge that).

photo u

From website purporting to be DOJ website (which I challenge):

photo v

From MSBA website:

photo x

From MSBA website:

photo x

From MSBA website:

photo y

From MSBA website:

photo z

Here are some docs I downloaded/obtained from the MSBA websit just now:

2010 Affirmation – Signer and nonsigners



MSBA Affirmation Assembly Approved 6-29-12


They were at this link:

I thought I was going to get to a pdf when I clicked on a link, but it dowloaded some files, and I am not sure they are safe.


Below is a picture of an html doc that the MSBA has on its site. It does not warn visitors that this is the format (I presumed pdf like the other docs).  I am not sure this is safe to be downloaded (and WordPress does not upload such types of docs).

photo b

Here’s another copy of Gildea’s 2008 campaign finance report:

gildea reports to MCFB


Who doesn’t want me arguing on video before Supreme Court?

Order – Grant

As I’ve stated in the past, I have filed numerous petitions for review with the MN Supremes, on important, timely, even cutting edge issues.  Only once has the Supreme Court granted my clients’ petition.  (Every other time I addressed the court when it was the court of first instance (huh, do you think that’s why I am told to use the appellate method for the attorney disciplinar case), or when an opposing counsel filed the petition.)

That case was Rew v. Bergstrom, and it was argued December 11, 2012.  Lori Gildea sat on that panel.  I am not sure why, because I understood she was recusing from cases involving me.

Here is a so-called “grant” order that was received in my firm’s email inbox (curiously, the transmittal email is now gone…).  There is an /s/ for Lorie Gildea’s name.

Well, I’d like to edit this post a bit, but I cannot locate the “grant” order vis a vis the petition.  I’d like a copy of it, the manually signed version.

I’ve having difficulty with all of the /s/ documents emanating from the Clerk of Appelate Courts.

A so-called “judgment” showed up in my firm’s email inbox, looking like this.

Judgment – Non-costs

It does not appear to be signed by anyone.  The whole notion of “attest,” is that a human being steps forward and says I witnessed this.  You can’t have an /s/ above a sig line that has no typewritten name below it.  I am demanding to see a fully-executed (signed by human beings) version of this so-called judgment.

The so-called judgment came in my email inbox with the following link:

A document has been filed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Case No. A12-0555.  To view this document click on the following link:

For your reference, the District Court/Agency Case No(s) (if applicable) is/are: 27-CV-10-12557

If you are unable to open this E-Notice by clicking on the hyperlink, copy & paste the text of the hyperlink directly into your Internet browser.

If you are still unable to view the document, contact

Clerk of Appellate Courts

**Do not reply to this message. Replies to this message are routed to an unmonitored mailbox.**

But the wierdness continues.

This so-called judgment came in State v. Robin Magee (I added the word Magee to the title of the doc).

Judgment – Non-costs Magee

To my understanding, Magee had received an extension to file petition for review by the Supreme Court (although the doc I saw also came with an /s/), so the time was not yet up to file.  Huh.  Wierd to get a “judgment” before the petition for review is filed.  But given the things I’ve seen going on up there, I guess there’s a lot that needs looking into.

Magee – CoA Decision

The above so-called “decision” of the COA (folks, the problem with messing around with the integrity of the system is that even a tiny bit of variance means you don’t trust what you are getting and therefore can’t count on it), deemed “unpublished.”  Now, you may have seen my post about Minn. Stat. 480A.08, Subd. 3.  This case sported numerous important issues, issues of first impression, issues of federal law, procedure, and even the meaning of “intent” in Minnesota.  This should have been a published opinion.  Who made the decision not to publish it?  How much power is given to an administrator in the Appellate Courts.

Addition:  these pcmacs docs coming to the firm’s email inbox curiously disappeared earlier than August 2012.

Again:  If it is not in my email inbox, and I can’t access it online, I’m ready to say it is not public law.  Members of the public surely cannot be bound by opinions that disappear.


Okay, so things are getting wierd.

Just after I posted about whether or not documents bearing the /s/ emanating from the MN Appellate Courts are really indicating that someone signed them, I see this “order” waiting in my email inbox.

That is, it had this email, see link

A document has been filed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Case No. A12-0326.  To view this document click on the following link:

For your reference, the District Court/Agency Case No(s) (if applicable) is/are:

If you are unable to open this E-Notice by clicking on the hyperlink, copy & paste the text of the hyperlink directly into your Internet browser.

If you are still unable to view the document, contact

Clerk of Appellate Courts

**Do not reply to this message. Replies to this message are routed to an unmonitored mailbox.**

This doc was attached:

Order – Atty Discipline Briefing Sched.

There are so many wierd things about this document, I can’t possibly list them all here.  Here’s a few:

1.  You can see above that the description of the order is “Atty Discipline Briefing Sched.”  I did not create that title, that came already on the document.  Now, if this was really a suspension order, wouldn’t the description say “suspension?”  Others I have seen in the past, where attorneys are being suspended, say that in the description of the order.

2.  Was this order drafted and signed by the Honorable Alan C. Page?  I am publicly asking whether Your Honor signed this document.  If the Minnesota Clerk of Appellate Court cannot produce a full, longhand signature to match this document, Houston, we have a problem!

3.  The “order” (hey, now I want to see all the so-called “orders” in this case; when people I know went to review the physical file, they were not allowed to see it – another problem) that was sent to my firm’s email inbox said something was due by the 14th, not the 11th.  So something is terribly wrong.

4.  Of course, I objected in this blog to anything being “due” by the 14th, on the merits, because of a gaping jurisdictional problem.  It is a judge’s duty to determine if he or she has jurisdiction.  You can’t put that on the lawyer.  Read the recent law from the Eighth Circuit on that topic, including but not limited to Schottel.

5.  The so-called “order” says at the bottom that C.J. Gildea took no part.  Is that accurate?  I am publicly asking the Honorable Lorie S. Gildea whether she had any part in that “order.”  HEARING NOTHING I will assume she did.  (No more refusing to respond to your public.  If you do not respond by the end of the business day tomorrow, 5 pm, your public will be entitled to presume that you have involved yourself in this case, and in that particular order.)

6.  Also, this purported “order” broke the seal in place by order of the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Whoever wrote and/or disseminated this is in violation of a court order.  I demand that this be investigated.  The law does not just apply to private people.

7.  The so-called “order” does not accurately reflect what it purports to reflect.  The attempt to cast me in a bad light has gone to rediculous lengths.  Do you really think that you have people fooled (whoever you are)?

8.  The attempt in the so-called “order” to tell Attorney Clark what to do is laughable.  The court has not established jurisdiction.  The court does not cite law for its propositions (like that a transcript request form is due, or that briefing should be appellate-style).  This is the court of first instance in attorney-disciplinary matters.  Trying to act like an appellate court is a pretty obvious attempt to prevent me from filing anything.  This is a serious access to courts problem.

9.  Whoever wrote this knows next to nothing about disability law or duty.  Duty does not go down, duty goes up.  The attempt to state simultaneously that the lawyer cannot represent clients but needs to represent clients, well, it’s off to logic 101 for you.



What’s up with all the different types of “signatures?”


I am growing increasinly concerned with the various types of “signatures” that appear on MN Court of Appeals and Supreme Court documents.  I don’t know yet whether to call them orders or opinions (or either), because I don’t yet know what they are.

Here’s an example of a purported “order.”  Note how there is no signature of a judge.  But even if we were to accept “digital” signatures, there is no name printed digitally.  Rather, there is merely an /s/, and I don’t know what that means for digital signatures.

In the olden days, /s/ meant there is a signed copy in the file.

Is there a signed copy of the attached document in the file?  I am publicly asking Matthew Johnson whether he signed this document.  And if not, whether he knew it was being issued under his signature.

Order – Grant[1]