How Public is the Law: Part 12

I have had numerous problems with the TylerHost e-filing said to be a service of the Fourth Judicial District.  It will take many posts to go through all of that.

I would like to see the contract with TylerHost.  What entity contracted?

This is another email said to be from that service.  Note how it says the link will only be availlable for 30 days.  Why?  If a lawyer (or party) gets an email with a link to an order in their case, why would it have anylimitation on when they can access it?

It’s bad enough that the private attorneys cannot see all orders (any time we want) from our desktops.  Government lawyers have a big advantage from being able to access these.  But then to say that the order is only available for 30 days, drains resources from private firms. But it also leaves open the possibility that someone will change the order, and that they don’t want you to be able to prove, later, what the first order said and prove electronically where it came from.

Look people.  I didn’t even suspect some of this stuff several months ago.  But my eyes have been opened, and now I think it’s time we got it all figured out.

Sent:  Wed 12/5/2012 12:51 PM

From: no-reply@tylerhost.net

This is a service filing for Case No. 27-CV-11-22642

This message was automatically generated utilizing Tyler Technologies’ File & Serve; do not reply to this email.
Should you have any problems viewing or printing this document, please call (800)297-5377.

This link will remain active for 30 days.

Date Submitted: 12/5/2012 12:44:34 PM
Case Style: Michelle Gathje vs CITY OF RICHFIELD, James Schlemmer, Sheri Schlemmer, Rick Regnier, Tim Kirk, John Does 1-5
Filing Code: Correspondence

The following are the service contacts on this filing:
Case:

CITY OF RICHFIELD:

Susan Tindal (stindal@iversonlaw.com)

Stephanie Angolkar (sangolkar@iversonlaw.com)

Bonnie Hallstrom (bhallstrom@iversonlaw.com)

Paul Reuvers (preuvers@iversonlaw.com)

James Schlemmer:

Mark Covin (mcovin@bassford.com)

Kimberly Motzko (kimm@bassford.com)

Mark Bradford (mbradford@bassford.com)

Lisa Carlson (lcarlson@bassford.com)

Sheri Schlemmer:

Mark Covin (mcovin@bassford.com)

Kimberly Motzko (kimm@bassford.com)

Mark Bradford (mbradford@bassford.com)

Lisa Carlson (lcarlson@bassford.com)

Case:

Peggy Katch (peggy@jillclarkllc.com)

Jill Clark (jill@jillclarkllc.com)

Download Document

If the links above do not work, copy this URL into your browser’s address bar to download the
document: http://minnesota.tylerhost.net/ServeDocument.ashx?SID=7dc8da6b-4ce5-46f7-8070-ffb20aae0d06&RID=0e3f75f1-a3c7-4af8-be8e-a40be0b2c118

Minnesota Judicial Branch Disclaimer: This is an official government communication. As the recipient, you are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed. They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 1-800-297-5377 and delete this message. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

***

This was a curious case from the start.  I picked the case up when it had been around a couple of years.  I noticed things that caught my attention, such as when my client filed a motion to vacate (there are a couple of file numbers, and some were consolidated/before the same judge) we Clerk at Judge DuFresne’s chambers said she was going to recuse, but that order just did not come.  We called again to inquire (we needed to proceed with the case), and what we finally got was an order with a stamped signature.

Several other orders from that case should be investigated.  The date stamps are just inconsistent.  Note that there is a version of the purported order of the court, but it is not signed by a judge.  First, why would any judicial institution issue an “order” that is not signed by a judge.  Second, this makes it look like a clerk wrote the order, and emailed it to counsel to get it out the door, and only later sought a signature from the judge.  That is disturbing in several respects.

But also, note that when there is a judicial signature, the date stamp says the same date.  It’s hard to believe that could be accurate.  Also, orders in this case bore numerous date stamps at the top, in a number of formats.  I am disappointed to have to say that I had a case where we subpoena’d an original court record from Dakota County Court, and once the original was viewed, it became obvious the real date stamp had been whited out, and a back-dated stamp put in its place.

In other words, these things do happen.  They need to be investigated, because in a date-driven business, one day can mean a lot.

Note also that the practice of a judge-signed one or two-page order, followed by a “memorandum of law” gives the impression (when one becomes aware of all the things I’ve studied over the past couple of years) that the Judge signed the order, and later the Clerk wrote the memorandum.

Note how in the copy of Judge Swenson’s order, below, he initialed the Memorandum of Law, showing the lawyers that he approved it.

Swenson Order Consolidating and Companioning

Full but unsigned December 8 2010 order

Full certifid version of December 8 2010 order

Full version September 13 2010 order

In January 2012, I made a number of observations to counsel and the court.  I disclosed a number of documents, and put various people on notice of problems that I saw.  Here’s that string, top email sent Tue 1/24/2012 11:55 AM:

Let me send you this while I am thinking of it.

Basically, there are three cases pending for Ms. Gathje.  I will refer to them by number, first in time is 1, second in time is 2 and third in time is 3.

Case #1, Judge DuFresne was on the case, and she apparently recused herself, although I have to say that I am confused about communications from that Chambers.  My Assistant (to my knowledge and belief) called Judge DuFresne’s chambers a number of times seeking to put on a hearing.  She did not.  And, although Hans Anderson told my  Assistant that Judge DuFresne had a “standing order” to recuse in all of Jill Clark’s cases, the recusal was not forthcoming, either.  This was strange, and it had the effect of blocking Ms. Gathje’s motion to vacate (see motion to vacate).  This denied access to courts.  We do not know what was happening at this time, but my guess is that if you ask Hans Anderson he can provide more details.  Suffice it to say that we are reasonably suspicious that Judge Blaeser, as Presiding Judge of Civil, was blocking the recusal of Judge DuFresne (or she herself did not want to recuse, she could have been in a Catch 22, with the “standing order” hanging out there for some years, and yet wanting to keep this case).  Then, we finally got an order for recusal, but it was literally “rubber-stamped,” as opposed to being signed by Judge DuFresne. Only then did we get a new judge.

For all three cases, the Judges that were assigned gave us pause.  One of the issues in the cases is, in the evidence-supported view of Ms. Gathje, that the Bassford Remele firm was really representing the individual defendants (and likely charging their insurance-company client(s), which must be some kind of insurance fraud, I don’t know this area of the law that well and I must confess that I am quite stressed right now and trying to create this emergency “motion,” but I would venture to say that Mark Bradford knows insurance law very well, and I would ask that Mr. Bradford provide Chief Judge Swenson with records from the Bassford firm to establish this.  Attorney bills are not attorney-client privileged.  (Mark, if you check this out, I think you will find that I am right.)

It is also Ms. Gathje’s evidence-supported opinion that it was the Bassford firm that hired Leonard, Street &  Deinard to come in after the evidence was taken at trial, to make the argument that the wife no longer being a party (this dismissal of this client procured in my opinion through coercion) was therefore a basis to heavily reduce the value of the judgment.  I cannot keep straight in my head right now which “new” judge was assigned to the three cases, so I am requesting that Chief Judge Swenson print out Register of Actions, and otherwise that he review the physical files for these three cases, but I do recall quite specifically that Judge Robiner was assigned to at least one of the cases, and she spent numerous years as an Attorney at Leonard, Street & Deinard.  Now, that does not necessarily mean she would be biased in favor of LSD, but it does give someone like
Michelle Gathje pause.  And this type of assignment caused Ms. Gathje to be concerned that the Assignments process at the Hennepin County Court was so out of control that it could not be trusted.  We are deeply, deeply concerned.  Because the assignment of a judge is perhaps the single most important thing that a court does.  This has a substantial impact on justice, access to courts and prejudice to Ms. Gathje.

I know if information of ex parte communications with Judge DuFresne that heavily prejudiced Ms. Gathje and her case.

But there is another problem that I have not been able to get at very well.  And that is that if the court staff look at a case, and see only one plaintiff, it does not take a rocket scientist to think “one step ahead,” and give them for the first judge, someone that the “assigner” knows they will strike.  That makes them “out of strikes,” and then the second judge (sleeper, stalker judge) can be put on the file and the plaintiff is stuck.  If you want to see how this works, please consult the Stepnes case filed in Hennepin County District Court.

The other judges that were assigned (Bruce Peterson and Margaret Daly) are not trusted people in my book.  I have certain leanings, and I am aware of certain evidence, but I have no time to list is all here.  Suffice it to say that my client would have stricken these judges, and then been out of strikes.  Without being able to get at the assignment process (and what we are suspicious was the unseen hand of Judge Blaeser) there is no way to get at the problem.

Because it has been communicated that Judge Blaeser only has “chief judge” discretion by virtue of some kind of delegation of Chief Judge statutory authority, we posed in our motion to consolidate to the Chief Judge that we needed assurances that Judge Blaeser would not be involved in assignments, and that we should be deemed not to have used any strikes.

This is all I have time for right  now.

I am going to forward some docs at well.

I am going to send multiple emails.

Jill Clark, Esq.

Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone:  763/417-9102

Fax:  763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.com

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: Eidsness, Kyle [mailto:Kyle.Eidsness@courts.state.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:57 AM
To: Jill Clark; Mark R. Bradford; Stephanie A. Angolkar
Cc: Peggy Katch
Subject: RE: Gathje v. City of Richfield, et al; Court File No. 27-CV-11-22642

Judge Swenson is aware of the situation.  I hope to have more information for everyone this afternoon.

Thanks,

Kyle A. Eidsness

Law Clerk to the Honorable James T. Swenson

Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District

C-7 Government Center

300 South Sixth Street

Minneapolis, MN 55487

Phone #: 612-348-2192

Fax #: 612-596-9144

Visit our website

Fourth Judicial District Court Disclaimer: This is an official government communication. As the recipient, you are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.  Thank you.  Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Jill Clark [mailto:jill@jillclarkllc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Mark R. Bradford; Stephanie A. Angolkar
Cc: Eidsness, Kyle; Peggy Katch
Subject: RE: Gathje v. City of Richfield, et al; Court File No. 27-CV-11-22642

Thanks, and yes.

I will write a short letter (even though I am not doing well, this is important to my client and I will do it),

And submit to Chief Judge Swenson asap.

I am very strained and stressed right now, and I am asking that Mr. Bradford kindly continue to give me gentle reminders, so that this court process can move forward.

 

Jill Clark, Esq.

Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone:  763/417-9102

Fax:  763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.com

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: Mark R. Bradford [mailto:MBRADFORD@bassford.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:13 AM
To: Jill Clark; Stephanie A. Angolkar
Cc: Eidsness, Kyle
Subject: RE: Gathje v. City of Richfield, et al; Court File No. 27-CV-11-22642

Ms. Clark:

I am not sure how to interpret your email.

I assume you still intend on having your motion to consolidate heard on February 3, 2012.  It appears you simply cannot file your brief today.  With all due respect, the consolidation issue is a fairly simple one — we should be able to adequately lay our our respective positions in a short letter to Judge Swenson.  I would also be willing to waive oral argument and simply let Judge Swenson decide on the submissions whether these three cases should be consolidated.  I simply want a permanent Judge assigned to the two new cases so my clients can proceed with their dispositive motions.

Unless I hear otherwise, I will assume we are still on for February 3.  If not, I will request that Judge Swenson simply permit short written submissions and rule without oral argument.  While I am sympathetic to your medical issues, these cases should not be delayed any longer.

Mark R. Bradford

Bassford Remele, P.A.

33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3800

Minneapolis, MN  55402

(P) (612) 376-1667

(F) (612) 746-1267

mbradford@bassford.com


From: Jill Clark [mailto:jill@jillclarkllc.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:18 PM
To: Stephanie A. Angolkar; Eidsness, Kyle; Mark R. Bradford
Subject: RE: Gathje v. City of Richfield, et al

Sorry folks, I am having to be on medical leave.

Sorry for your inconvenience.

I am not going to be able to file the brief today.

Jill Clark, Esq.

Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone:  763/417-9102

Fax:  763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.com

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: Stephanie A. Angolkar [mailto:sangolkar@iversonlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:41 PM
To: Eidsness, Kyle; mbradford@bassford.com; Jill Clark
Subject: RE: Gathje v. City of Richfield, et al

Mr. Eidsness,

Can we e-mail a courtesy copy when we e-file and serve or does Chief Judge Swenson prefer paper copies? Thanks!

Stephanie Angolkar

Attorney

IVERSON REUVERS
9321 Ensign Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55438
Direct: 952-548-7216
Facsimile: 952-548-7210

sangolkar@iversonlaw.com
www.iversonlaw.com

This communication may contain confidential or privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disseminate, distribute or copy this information.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify me by telephone immediately and destroy this information.  Thank you.

From: Eidsness, Kyle [mailto:Kyle.Eidsness@courts.state.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:32 PM
To: ‘mbradford@bassford.com’; ‘jill@jillclarkllc.com’; Stephanie A. Angolkar
Subject: Gathje v. City of Richfield, et al

Good afternoon:

Judge Swenson has reviewed Mr. Bradford’s letter of January 16, 2011, and is available to hear a motion to consolidate the three cases at 9:30 A.M. on Friday, February 3, 2012.  A courtroom has not yet been assigned.

Please make sure a copy of all papers is sent directly to his chambers.  Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Kyle A. Eidsness

Law Clerk to the Honorable James T. Swenson

Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District

C-7 Government Center

300 South Sixth Street

Minneapolis, MN 55487

Phone #: 612-348-2192

Fax #: 612-596-9144

Visit our website

Fourth Judicial District Court Disclaimer: This is an official government communication. As the recipient, you are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.  Thank you.  Please consider the environment before printing this email.

***

You will see my email notes I was under a lot of stress.  Frankly, I was observing so many problems with the integrity of the documentation and process in the Hennepin County Court that I was overwhelmed.

I asked counsel to assist.  The email above and documents below should be read in light of the motion to vacate, also attached.

***

Clark Aff plus exhibits

Clark Aff with FULL exhibits

Clark supplemental affidavit

fax transmission confirmation for motion to vacate and notice of apperance

Gathje Aff plus Exh

Gathje motion to dismiss

Jill Clark_20120124_122053

Jill Clark_20120124_122123

Jill Clark_20120124_122204

Jill Clark_20120124_122224

Jill Clark_20120124_122255

Jill Clark_20120124_122346

Jill Clark_20120124_122513

Jill Clark_20120124_123445

Memo FINAL

Nov 5 cover letter notice of appearance motion to vacate

Signed affidavit of French

Here’s from the appeal:

Cover ltr not appeal stat case aff serve DC cov ltr

Schlemmer (purportedly as individual pro se) filed a motion to dismiss.  It was opposed by Gathje, based on a concept well-honed in the federal courts, that lawyers should not ghost-write for clients claiming the client is pro se.  The reasons why are set out in our opposition.  Curiously, for those of you following the disciplinary case, Gathje’s points were not heded by the COA.  Later, however, when then the OLPR wanted to get Attorney Grigsby disciplined, suddenly the MN Supreme Court found that ghost-writing was inappropriate.  Curious how I will suggest modifications in the law to benefit my clients, those are not granted, but someone else makes the same argument (someone obviously with different “status” from me or my clients) and those are adopted.

Opposition 02 from Schlemmer individual motion to dismiss

Schlemmer Reply Brief Supporting Motion to Dismiss Schlemmer

Several letters went back and forth.  This is not the entirety, I’ll be updating later.

August 4 Letter from Leonard Streeet and Deinard

July 29 2011 signed

Letter to Schlemmer in care of Parry

Here are some additional letters, and Schlemmer’s motion to dismiss, purportedly written by Schlemmer pro se.

July 18 2011 from pro se Schlemmer

July 21 2011 from LSD

July 22 2011 from LSD

July 26 2011 from pro se Schlemmer

November 5 11 cover letter with motion to dismiss

Opposition signed

Pro se Schlemmer motion

Here’s an ABA opinion but for reasons that are unclear to me the last few pages in it are now blank.

ABA%20ghostwriting%20opinion%206-07