Tag Archives: Jeff Shorba

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

How much money was really SAVED?

There has been so much propaganda in the MN State Court System about how it needs to save money.  All government entities (and all private entities – don’t forget) have had to tighten their belt.  As always, the issue for the Public is what are the government decision-makers choosing to pay for, and not.

Lorie Gildea is a big proponent of “efficiency.”  But what does that really mean?

I was shocked to learn about the “digitization” projects in the MN State Courts.  From what I have seen (and I have not yet received even one single public document that I have requested), I do not believe this was handled well.  I’ll discuss this “project” in more depth.

But one bit of news can’t wait.

Last night when I was searching the MN Judicial Branch website (not an easy task; the search function is archaic, and the data is inconsistent), I located this First Judicial District newsletter.  Portions of it are reprinted below.

What you will notice is that MILLIONS of dollars have been added to the Court 2014-15 “budget” for salaries for tech people.

So how much money was really saved?

Could it be that the “administrator” justice has destroyed the integrity of 100 years of court records, all in the name of “efficiency,” but no money was really saved?

image

image

imageimage

Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea – who decided to destroy court records?

I have not gotten a response yet about who or what decided to destroy original court orders and other court records, and to have them scanned and stored in a digital environment.  (See various posts on this blog on this topic, and my attempt to get answers from Sue Dosal and Jeff Shorba.)  If you are the Chief Justice, don’t you have an obligation to inform your public?

Do you know who or what made the decision?

And who or what selected the company that would do the shredding and scan the records?

And where is the contract?

I want to see it – and I want to see it Monday.  No stalling, no run arounds, no games.

 

Minnesota Courts have a policy or custom of violating court orders: Part 3

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines seal,

As regards sealing of records, means to close by any kind of fastening that must be broken before access can be obtained.

The point of a seal in the courts, is that people including court personnel are physically sealed shut so that they cannot be viewed.  True, some court personnel will have to see them at times, but in the days of the taped envelope, at least that was kept to a minimum.  A pink bar, or a category of electronic data, that the entire courthouse can see, is not a “seal.”  (It may be possible with certain types of encryption or other electronic process to make a digital record difficult to access, by the average user, but the thing that court personnel need to understand is, that there is no encryption that a hacker cannot hack.  That’s what they do.   Hackers hack.  Do you think they do not?  It is no less than foolhardy to put sensitive data in a digital environment.)

The Judge/referee in my case sealed certain records.  (He did not seal al the records, but I’ll come back to that in Part 4.)  So that judge’s order to seal has been violated by the digital scanning/storage mechanism that someone selected.

I still have no response from anyone in the MN Judicial Branch as to who or what made the decision to destroy original court orders and to have them scanned and put into a digital environment.  The public has a right to know.

I am also concerned about the security for this storage system.  Could someone please explain to me what effort were made to:  a) study security and vulnerabilities; and b) put in place practices, physical and electronic safeguards to prevent hacking?  This is important, so please tell your Public.

I looked at two cases at Ramsey County (two file numbers).  My concerns about my cases, multiplied by the number of cases in which there is a seal or confidentiality issue (are juvenile records online now?  Has this been implemented statewide?) equates to is a policy or custom afoot.  Some know what that means.  Others should.  No matter what, you can be sure that this will be pursued.

What is Jeff Shorba’s current role, and will he answer questions from the public?

The email that I received (see “A public question for Sue Dosal from a member of the public” posts, Part 2), said to ask Jeff Shorba or Kristina Ford.  I then sent the following email:

email Shorba 1

And then followed up with this email, which had my original questions:

email Shorba 2

I did not see any response.

Is someone going to answer these important questions?  I asked Shorba not to refer me to someone else.

(For out of state readers, these names are all part of the Minnesota Judicial Branch community.)