Monthly Archives: May 2013

Wild birds...following the plough

And I’ve been waiting in the weeds

Waiting for my time to come around again and

Hope is floating on the breeze carrying my soul high up above the ground and

I’ve been keeping to myself

Knowing that the seasons are slowly changing…

I’ve been stumbling through some dark places 

Now I’m following the plow

I know I’ve fallen out of your good graces It’s alright now

And I’ve been waiting in the weeds

Waiting for the summer rain to fall upon the Wild birds scattering the seeds

Answering the calling of the tide’s eternal tune

The phases of the moon The chambers of the heart

The ebb and dart of small gray Spiders spinning in the dark

In spite of all the times the web is torn apart and

I’ve been waiting in the weeds Waiting for my time to come around again…

(Citation and appreciation to a songwrite I admire, Don Henley, you can check out the album from whence this quotation came…Long Road out of Eden…the Eagles as I understand it self-published, and you can locate the official site on the web.)

Posted May 28, 2013 around 10:39 a.m.

Access to court lies at the foundation of orderly government


“The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship … granted and

protected by the federal constitution.”

 Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 207 U.S. 142 (1907). 


May 25, 2013.  Derivative works are not authorized by copyright holder(s).

The mere use of the word “order” does not relieve law enforcement of responsibility

If a law enforcement agency executes a warrant when it has information that it is a bad warrant, or is not a warrant at all (that there is, literally, no judge-signed order), it risks liability.  That law enforcement agency needs to decide, based on all of the facts, whether it has the authority to take a certain action.  Further, that agency is not permitted to ignore facts it has been provided.

If law enforcement acts “abruptly and summarily” in the face of “evidence that might be characterized as contrary to the conclusion…” it “gamble[s] that is [i]s correct in its conclusions….”

Gentry v. Lee’s summit, 10 F.3d 1340, 1344 (8th Cir. 1993)

May 21, 2013.  Re-blog from jillclarkcontinues. No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

Mark Thompson: You are Accountable

See the email posted at:

The email discusses a serious topic at the Hennepin County Criminal Court.  See also the post directly below this (also posted today, May 21, 2013).

No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

Another fake warrant issued for Trisha Farkarlun?

I have investigated a situation that alarms me.  ON NOTICE that there was a fake warrant supposedly issued for Farkarlun, information now leads me to believe that there was a SECOND fake warrant issued.  I don’t mean disputable.  I mean – not even signed by a judge!

This is public notice to all members of the Fourth Judicial District/Hennepin County Criminal Court that Kate Forgherty (sp?) cannot sign warrants.  I don’t know what y’all were thinking, but trying now to cover it up is not going to help.  This is an urgent situation, members of the public are at risk.  If you claim you care about public safety, now is the time to do something to help.

Please inform me ASAP by email to that the Hennepin County Criminal Court has seen to it that the computer does NOT claim a “warrant” was issued for Trisha Farkarlun (and no fair pretending a “bench” warrant is not a warrant; it is).

ALL warrants must comply with the Minnesota Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

Art. I, 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.

ALL warrants means ALL warrants.  You can’t invent a new style of warrant and pretend the Constitution does not apply.

Gildea took no part?

Below is one example of the many documents that emanted, apparently, from someone at the MN Supreme Court, claiming that Lorie S. Gildea took no part in the consideration or decision of the case In re Clark, file no. A12-0326.  If anyone has information to support that statement, please disclose it via US mail to Jill Clark at the address for Jill Clark, LLC on file at the Supreme Court or to – by 5 pm May 23, 2013.   If I receive no responses, I will be entitled to assume the statement that Gildea took no part is false, and that Gildea has failed timely to disclose her activities.  Obviously, if anyone cares to disclose to me knowledge or evidence that Gildea did take part, please feel free also to transmit that.  If you would like to do that, but fear retaliation, please send an email without any text in the body or re line.


What is an Attorney: Part 5

This continues the series, “What is an Attorney?” (go to that category for prior posts).

“Attorney” means attorney, professional law association, corporation, or partnership, authorized under applicable law to practice law.

(Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth Ed., West Publishing Co., 1990).  This definition begs the question:  what is the applicable law for an “attorney” to be able to practice law?  I’ll follow up on that in a later post, but here are some preliminary comments.

How many Advocates are practicing in Minnesota courts, who have not been admitted to the practice of law?  (See definition of advocate at Part 4 of this series).

“Advocates” are common in domestic-abuse-type courts.  They claim their conversations are privileged (like an attorney-client privilege, I guess), and they argue their client’s cause, even appear in court for them. Has the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility ever investigated any of those Advocates?  Me thinks not. Has any of them ever been investigated for practicing law without a license?  Again – don’t think so.

Is a law license even unnecessary?  Or – are the ‘domestic abuse’ advocates treated more favorably because of their viewpoint?

Do we live in a state where practicing law/advocating a client’s cause without a license is the safest way to go – because then the OLPR cannot claim jurisdiction over you?  This is a sad testament to how sick that system has gotten.  And we, the Public, are entitled to reform government.  See Art. I, sec. 1 of the Minnesota Constitution.

OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.

We are tired of a system that just protects insiders – and those who cow tow to them. The Public does not want to pay for a sick system where insiders stay in power by vilifying attorneys who POINT OUT PROBLEMS IN THE SYSTEM, and targeting them for a take-down.  The Public, quite simply, does not want to pay for that anymore.

Who would want a law license in Minnesota?  After what I have been through – gosh, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.  Apparently, it just paints a target on your chest.

Time for change.

White person holding target

May 15, 2013.  No deriviative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

What is Fraud: Part 5

Continuing the series “What is Fraud?” (go to that category on this blog for earlier posts), and continuing the ‘badges of fraud,’ the next ‘badge’ is:

false statements as to consideration

False statements in consideration points up the false promise, or the way in which the fraud is going to con the victim out of their property.

In the example of the person who comes to the door claiming to be selling shoes (then takes your money and the shoes never arrive), the ‘false statement as to consideration’ is the con man’s statement that he will send the shoes.  If he knew he was never going to send the shoes, if that was just a false promise to get your money, that is a badge of fraud.

Let’s take another example. If a court demands a filing fee to “file” a case. Then it takes your money (much more than the price of most shoes – let’s say $550), but intends never to have the case ruled upon by judge(s), that is a false promise as to consideration.  You believe that by filing your case and paying the filing fee that the court will rule on the case.  (Your justification for believing that will be discussed in later posts.)

Your money is taken based on the belief that your case will be heard.  The court had an opportunity to, but failed to disclose that the case would never be heard.  In that situation, the fraud is by silence (you are not told that there is a shadow system that sidelines cases, and you are not told that case your case has been sidelined – when that occurs), and by gesture (the clerk nods and receives the papers and the money, implying you have filed a ‘case’ or motion, or writ).

You leave, having paid your money (not to mention the time and attorney fees already spent on the paperwork), believing the false statement as to consideration: that your case will be ruled upon by a judge(s).

In this situation, the failure, the refusal to tell you before you pay your money that the case is not going to be decided by judge(s), is a false statementby omission as to consideration.

three white people hear see speak no evil

May 16, 2013.  No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).