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.
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.
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.
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.
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.|
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.
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.
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.
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.
(That’s just a shorthand name for it, I’m not suggesting he wrote it.)
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.
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).
Here is a copy of a letter signed by Klausing and Cole:
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.
Here is a copy of the motion to recuse all 7 ,members of the MN Supreme Court.
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.
This is the Affirmation that the MSBA and others were pressuring lawyers in this community to sign post US Supreme Court White decision:
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.
I haven’t compared these with the paper I scanned this evening, but this was in a different location:
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:
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):
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:
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).
From website purporting to be DOJ website (which I challenge):
From MSBA website:
From MSBA website:
From MSBA website:
From MSBA website:
Here are some docs I downloaded/obtained from the MSBA websit just now:
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).
Here’s another copy of Gildea’s 2008 campaign finance report: