Monthly Archives: April 2013

Conroy removed – was a bench warrant issued AFTER removal?

Below is a copy of the notice of removing Lois Conroy, signed by Trisha Farkarlun and provided to the Court 4/25/13.  It was never explained why Judge Alexander, who apparently stated from the bench that it was her case, would have been removed by Administration, and Conroy put on the file.  Why it is that members of the public are told they only have one removal (even if 20 judges are assigned – by virtue of Hennepin County ‘policy’) but Court Administration, which is not even a party, removes judges all the time – apparently any time they want.  This is not ok.

Notice the handwritten note,

“Hennepin [County court] does not have jurisdiction, I am filing this because I have great fear of appearing in front of her.”

Even if Hennepin County Court had jurisdiction after Farkarlun’s conviction was REVERSED in 2010, Conroy surely did not have jurisdiction after the notice of removal was filed.

What is going on?

Your Public demands answers to the following:

1.  Why was Alexander removed?  Who made the decision?

2.  Why was Conroy put on?  And why such late notice?  I am specifically asking whether the switcheroo was because of the removal papers.

3.  Did someone testify under oath in favor of a bench warrant?  What facts supported probable cause that a crime had been committed?  I cannot imagine that there are any.  Was the warrant just a MnCIS entry?  And if so, who made the computer entry Why can’t I look at MnCIS and tell what human being will stand by this warrant?

Minn. Const. Art. 1, sec. 10

Sec. 10. UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES PROHIBITED. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

image

Papers should NOT go MISSING at courts

This is the conformed certificate for service of the Farkarlun removal papers (from the Fourth Judicial District to the District of Minnesota), conformed by the US District Court. The removal has been perfected.

This certificate is for the second set served.  We decided to process two sets, because of removal papers going MISSING or other problems that courts SHOULD NOT HAVE in the past, at both the Fourth District and the US District Court.  I hold the Administrators of those Courts responsible.  The removal has been perfected.  If the courts “lose” the papapers – that is their problem.  You can’t have a system where some people are literally barred from litigating in court.

The Public demands accountability.

image

 

Farkarlun case removed: who is working to prevent removal and access to courts?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

STATE of MINNESOTA,

 

Plaintiff,

 

v.

 

Trisha Farkarlun,

 

Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVING NOTICE OF REMOVAL

This morning I emailed to Judge Tunheim’s chambers, removal papers regarding Trisha Farkarlun, a letter from me (with Att. A), and the Petition signed by Ms. Farkarlun (with Exhibits A through C).  I then served the Fourth District Court via Mark Thompson, and I served Michael Freeman with the above.

                                                                                    ***

Dated:  April 25, 2013                                                              ______________________

Jill Clark, Advocate

***The above was signed long-hand, but the picture of the document that was posted into the last post, appeared with just an image number.  Significant problems continue with this WordPress blog.  This so-called Farkarlun can has been removed despite significant hindrances, impediments and obstruction.