MN Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction part 2

 

Please read part one of this post as background.

This is official, statewide notice (actually, worldwide) to the Minnesota Supreme Court that is lacks jurisdiction, and has lacked jurisdiction since June 8, 2012.  All proceedings in that court since that date have been illegal, and subject the judicial officers to lawsuit and liability.

Attempting, by “order” to require Clark to file to discuss the case on the merits, is an attempt to force her to waive her jurisdictional argument.

Clark is not waiving her jurisdictional argument.

When Clark has had such issues (illegal orders) from district court judges, she has advance to the court of appeals to file a write of prohibition and/or mandamus.

If a lawyer has such an issue with a Court of Appeals order, she can file a writ with the Supreme Court.

But when a lawyer encounters an illegal order from the Supreme Court (and the illegality of the orders has many prongs), where does she go?

ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.

The above section of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees Minnesotans the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.

This is a public call (writ) to reform the Minnesota Supreme Court, by the public.

The public only ceded its power to government in exchange for certain alienable rights.  This is one such right in Minnesota.

Government officials seem quick to forget that their have a higher duty than the citizens.  I have noticed, numerous times in the past decade, that members of government object to my clients’ conduct, when we are proceeding as a matter of right.  When government engage in that same conduct, however, they must do so under the guarantees to us made by the Constitution(s), and often, they are proceeding in areas although prohibited to do so.

Numerous members of the public watch this blog.  Hearing no objections from the public (if you want to object that is fine, go to About and fill in your information; state in the text if you are ok with that publicly posting), by noon on Sunday, January 13, 2013, I will presume the public agrees.