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: http://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/document.do?doView=&document=736624fc7ff29aceed2199e9877f06676a11cd14c627060e5712fee979837e25

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 pmacs.enotice.help@courts.state.mn.us.

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.