Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction


A couple of things have happened recently in my state disciplinary case.

On January 4, 2013, an order purporting to have been signed by the Honorable Alan C. Page, was delivered to my firm’s email inbox.  I am reluctant to save these types of documents to my computer, because I am not sure of the sources, and not sure of the technical properties.

That order (if it is one) stated that Jill Clark had 10 days to “show cause” why her license should not be suspending pending the Supreme Court’s review.

On January 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, I emailed the following to:; copy to; and with the following text

Your Honor,

A January 4, 2013 “order to show cause,” which did not cite any particular authority, sought some type of information or responses from Respondent.

I believe that the short answer is that this Court lacks jurisdiction, and has lacked jurisdiction since the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 8, 2012.

Respondent reserves additional argument and response.  As this Court is aware, jurisdictional issues are appropriately handled before any other type of issue.

In purported response, I got not one, but two different orders, both purporting to have signed by Alan C. Page.

The first was received in my firm’s email inbox on January 10, later that day.  When I say “received,” it was really an email with a link, that the user is forced to click on to receive what is being represented as the public law.

I have no assurances, as a user, that that link is safe, or even where it takes me.

It took me to a pdf document, which I did not save into my system.

The “order” stated that the email had been received but would not be considered (not verbatim).  That order also stated that further submissions by Attorney Clark would need to follow Minnesota Rule of Appellate Civil Procedure 125.

The “order” said nothing about the appellate rules in general.  Further, that order said nothing about the Court requiring additional information or argument.

On January 11, 2013, at about 2:00 PM (when many would have expected me to visit Judge Montgomery’s Courtroom over at the Minneapolis US District Courthouse), the firm’s inbox received yet another “order” (that is, a link to some uncertain location) also professing to be an order of the Honorable Alan C. Page.  This was also a pdf.

I also declined to save this order in my system.

That “order” was slightly different from the order I linked to on January 10.  This one was harsher in tone, it stated that the email would not be accepted, but it indicated that Clark had to follow the Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure, which was a more general statement.

That “order” required Attorney Clark to submit something by January 14th.

That “order” had an /s/ “signature” – meaning that no one hand wrote a signature at the bottom of the order.

I have noticed this problem in the past.  Some orders purportly from the Minnesota appellate courts have signatures, some have a /s/.  That inconsistency, in and of itself, has caused me since at least June 2012 to not trust the source of the documents, that they are real judicial orders, or if there is such an order somewhere, that they contain the accurate text of such order.

This is major problem for lawyers and parties trying to practice in a digital court filing and delivery environment.  I can point out the problem, but I bear no duty to fix it.  That duty lies with the institutions, alone.

The second “order” (meaning the January 11 version) could be read to rule on a dispute that had arisen over what type of transcript (if any) Respondent Clark was required to purchase.

This debate had been active between Clark, Kirby Kennedy (an unregistered Minnesota company), and likely the OLPR (although Mr. Kennedy denied communications with the OLPR on the issue, I am not required to take his word, and I do not.

Clark had ordered the transcript of the December 7, 2013 proceedings (which were all in the abence of jurisdiction), and in response, Kirby Kennedy sent the following email (the string is included below – you’ll have to excuse the formatting, something or person seems to be having an issue):

We have not talked to the Director’s office since the hearing was concluded.

We have no information to divulge.


Kirby A. Kennedy


From: Jill Clark []
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: Hearing December 7


And you have NOT answered my questions.


Please have Kirby answer the specific questions, below.


Has your office talked at all to the Director’s office?  If so, please divulge all of that information.



Jill Clark, Esq.

Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone:  763/417-9102

Fax:  763/417-9112

This email may contain confidential or privileged communications.  If you are not the proper recipient of this email, please destroy it and let us know that you have done so.  If you are a client and want to discuss the risks associated with emails, or if you do not wish to have us communicate via email, please let us know.


From: Kreporters []
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:41 PM
To: Jill Clark
Subject: RE: Hearing December 7


The director has NOT ordered the transcript.


From: Jill Clark []
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Hearing December 7


Please fully answer my questions below.

Or have Kirby answer them.



Sent from Jill’s iPad

On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:35 PM, “Kreporters” <> wrote:

That is correct.

The Lawyers Board has not ordered the transcript.  Therefore, if you want it transcribed, you have to pay for the Original and One Copy.


Thank you



From: Jill Clark []
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: Hearing December 7


What do you mean by, “it has not been ordered?”

Do you mean by the Director?


Please cite you legal authority for: 1) stating that Respondent must purchase more than her own copy; and 2) the notion that prepayment must be made when: you have a monopoly on this product/service; and prepayment of the entire amount does not permit the consumer (me) to determine if she is satisfies with the quality before paying the final amount.



Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4, 2013, at 12:13 PM, “Kreporters” <> wrote:

Per your request for the transcript of the hearing taken December 7.

It has not been ordered, therefore, you would be paying for the Original and One Copy.

This will be about $765.00


You will receive your transcript about one week after we receive your payment.


Thank you,



Kirby A. Kennedy & Associates

219 Edina Executive Plaza

5200 Willson Road

Minneapolis, MN 55424

Phone (952)922-1955

Fax (952)922-0371


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG –
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 – Release Date: 01/03/13

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG –
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 – Release Date: 01/03/13

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG –
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6009 – Release Date: 01/04/13

Kirby then sent me this email:

Julie Krier is the office manager at Kirby A. Kennedy & Associates.

She answers phones and takes all the calls.

There have been no calls concerning your case between the Director’s office and our office.

This is as explicit as I can be.


Kirby A. Kennedy

And this one

There has been no correspondence either e-mails or written between the Directors office and our office concerning your case.


As you know, these hearings are treated the same as a deposition, in that the ordering party receives an Original  and one copy.

If you wanted to order another copy there would be an extra charge.

I don’t know where you get the idea that we have a monopoly on this service.  There other Court Reporting  firms in the twin cities that does this work for the director.  Concerning the prepayment of the entire amount, it has been my firms history In dealing with these types of cases that if we don’t get it prepaid we don’t get paid.


Please consider this our last response.


Kirby A. Kennedy


A purported “order” requiring Clark to follow the rules of appellate procedure (which is preposterous given that type of case) seems to desire to press Clark to pay a filing fee, and purchase multiple transcripts including one for the court.