See the email posted at:
http://misconductbyprosecutors.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/mark-thompson-you-are-accountable/
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).
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 statement – by omission – as to consideration.
May 16, 2013. No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).
This is being re-blogged from Jill Clark Continues. I also sent an email yesterday to Rita DeMeueles with the site address: www.jillclarkcontinues.wordpress.com so she would be sure to note the demand for disclosures.
***
I have spoken with Rita DeMeules, MN Supreme Court Commissioner. I am aware that she reports directly to Lorie S. Gildea. I am also aware of documents purporting to be ‘orders’ in In re Clark, that state at the bottom, that Gildea “took no part” in the decision. How am I to believe that is true? When the staff report to her?
Full disclosures are demanded, by end of business day Thursday, May 16, 2013, including but not limited to:
1) all involvement of Gildea in In re Clark;
2) a list of all meetings regarding In re Clark that were not held in the courtroom including who was in attendance and what was discussed;
3) a list of all meetings regarding In re Clark that did not involve the full Court and including who was in attendance and what was discussed;
4) why the recusal motion filed by Clark July 2012 was not considered and decided by the full court (from talking to DeMeueles, it sounds like there is some “docket” that motions and other matters must be placed on, and that staff decide what will be placed there, and why – why isn’t the public told that what we file can be sidelined by staff? And how am I to believe, under those conditions, that staff did not do what Gildea, their supervisor, wanted them to do?)
5) whether the motion to change status of email evidence filed February 2012 was considered and decided by the full Court, and if not – why not.
Look, this is just for starters. I am going to have MANY MORE questions.
May 14, 2013 (re-blogged May 15, 2013 on jillclarkspeaks). No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).
Jill Clark Speaks 