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 jillclarkcitizen@yahoo.com 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 jillclarkcitizen@yahoo.com – 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.

image

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).

Full disclosures demanded from Lorie S. Gildea and Staff

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).

What is Fraud: Part 4

This continues the series, What is Fraud?  (Go to the “What is Fraud?” category on this blog for earlier posts.)  Fraud can be proven using what are known as the ‘badges of fraud.’

Badges of fraud. A circumstance or other fact accompanying a transfer of property that the courts recognize as an especially reliable indicator of the transferror’s actual intention to hinder, delay, or defraud [] in making the transfer.  It is defined as a fact tending to throw suspicion upon a transaction, and calling for an explanation.

Above is the first part of the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Ed., West Publishing Co., 1990).  In a situation where numerous badges of fraud are observed, fraud is inferred.  I will, in later posts, discuss the badges of fraud, and give them some context.

green dollar sign being pulled by three white people

May 13, 2013.  No derivatives works are authorized by copyright holder(s).