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 firstname.lastname@example.org – 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.
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).
This series has been discussing the various definitions of the word “attorney.” Here is Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of Advocate:
Advocate. One who assists, defends, or pleads for another. One who renders legal advice and aid and pleads the cause of another before a court or a tribunal, a counselor. A person learned in the law, and duly admitted to practice, who assist his client with advice, and pleads for him in open court. An assistant, adviser; a pleader of causes.
(Sixth Ed., West Publishing Co., 1990). Advocate appear in various types of matters including domestic abuse cases (where they are common).
This continues the important series: what is fraud? The following sentences continue the Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Ed., West Publishing Company 1990) definition from the previous 2 posts in the series:
Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth or look or gesture. A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestion, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated.
To my studied understanding, the term “silence” in the above defintion is sometimes referred to as fraud by omission.
Of course, all lawyers and judges know the above due to their training (see my other series, What is an Attorney?). Non-lawyers may also be interested in the above. Some people might want to consult their attorney for more information.
Speaking of looks and gestures – why does the ‘video’ of MN Supreme Court sessions not show the faces of the judges? Doesn’t the public have a right to see their looks and gestures?
I see no rule requiring lawyers and parties who appear in the Supreme Court to fill out a form. If someone can point me to the rule, I will be happy to review it.
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.