Back in the year 2000, I think, several members of the community began the journey to get Federal Mediators here in Minneapolis. After a so-called “riot” in North Minneapolis, the process got a jump start. We put together a community negotiating team. We called it the CNT. Jill Waite and I are both attorneys, and we were part of the original negotiating team (CNT).
The Minneapolis City Council and then-Chief Olson worked to destroy the CNT, and to create their own team to sit at the table – ostensibly as the community representatives. Several of us filed a writ in the Hennepin County Court. See final writ, without signatures, below:
writ as filed without signatures
I was told Judge Duffy had been assigned, but he never did anything. He was supposed to issue a writ immediately. He failed to do that.
The City (I believe Council Member Zerby was vocal on this, but others were certainly involved) demanded that the writ action be dismissed – or the City would not mediate. I recall Council Member Zerby stating at a City Council meeting, “you’re either litigating or mediating!” (That might not be verbatim, but it’s close.) First off, that’s rediculous. You can do both, and both are done all the time, in many cases throughout the country every day. But second, it seems the real goal was to get Jill Waite and Jill Clark off the team that the City would permit to negotiate.
Waite and I had already shown we wanted to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Instead, the community negotiating team ended up with Attorney Gregory Gray, who had been a state legislator and had worked for the Bar Association, and who (I’m told) quit coming to meetings fairly early, essentially abdicating his duty as counsel to the community team. (I wonder whether someone put pressure on him to quit.) And then community members were stuck negotiating a legal documents against the City’s lawyers, and the Police Federation’s lawyers – without an attorney.
The attorneys for the City and the Federal took unethical advantage of the community members – who were unrepresented. (I’m pretty sure the Rice, Michels firm represented the Federation during the talks. I have raised issues with lawyers in that firm before but I didn’t seem to be able to get anyone to tend to it.) I would like the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility to consider investigating those attorneys. Will he? Let’s see.
Well, the CNT ended up going our own way on the issue of the MPD’s interactions with the community.
We worked toward the involvement of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, and invited that agency here to investigate. See Federal Mediation Now press release, and CNT press releases:
federal mediation now press re patterns & practices
The lawyer-less community team worked hard, and the knew a lot of the issues to strive for. But they were taken advantage of, and what resulted was a so-called “contract,” that to my review, contained no required actions by the MPD, except to have its minions hand out business cards.
And in the years that followed, it became clear that even THAT was not being done. (We reported that to the MPD, but it did nothing to change how it was operating on that issue.)
CUAPB did a review of the agreement:
an analysis of the minneapolis federal mediation agreement
That organization did a good job pointing up substantive problems with the “agreement,” and issues that remained.
Many people worked to prevent Federal Mediation. Then, when it finally got going, in its stripped down form, many people worked to keep lawyers off the team, and to make the “agreement” a hollow, unenforceable piece of paper. Many years and dollars were wasted. Those of us who worked hard to bring Federal Mediators to town lobbied for that process, in part, because it was faster. And less expensive. But many people got together to make sure neither of those things happened. It’s now 2012. Twelve years is not fast in my book. Particularly not when people are getting hurt each year.
And it was not less expensive. It could have been. But City officials, police officers, Police Chiefs, and many others, including the Police Federation, worked to ensure the public would pay as much as possible. I don’t understand that mentality, but that’s what I observed. And as an American, I get to say that.
Now, it’s negotiation time again.
I, for one, tried to do this a softer, gentler way.
I tried hard for a long time.
For many years.
But those who made it grueling and hard to get to the table, also made it expensive.
That is not my fault: I wished it could have gone a different way.
But now it’s time to set things right.
I still want to work things out.
I still want this community to be able to sit down together and work things out. I don’t think what individual people want is so very different. I believe there are a lot of police officers who don’t want things to stay the way they are. But a lot gets in the way. And a lot needs to be moved to the side before we can come to fruition and resolution.
Look at this settlement memo, written back in April 2003. We were always willing to sit down and work things out. Peter Ginder never got back to us. Peter Ginder NEVER called me, ever, I never even saw the man (he avoided me, it seemed, at all costs), until we filed the writ action against Chief Dolan back in February 2010.
2 12 10 filing Petition and Att A
And then I saw him as he walked toward the elevator. He still refused to engage in ANY discussion with me. Never has. I think he has been quite active on my clients’ cases – but he will not talk to me. (By the way, that writ did issue in the Dolan case. And it was never dismissed, never quashed. To my knowledge, it is still active.)
Gosh Peter Ginder. You might have cost the City a lot of money. (Why didn’t the Lawyers Board ever investigate any government attorneys who cost the TAXPAYERS huge amounts of money? Why didn’t they ever think that was worth it? Could it be because they always had a police officer on the Board?)
Again, it’s too bad. But that’s the path some people chose.
I did my best.
There continues to be prior restraint of my speech.
A black screen pops up and blocks the blog, and there is other interference.
Are you going to do something about this?
I lot of people know that as a criminal defense attorney, I worked hard to get police and prosecutors to preserve and produce evidence. Preservation of evidence is important in civil cases, as well. In fact, the law demands that if the defendant has reason to believe there will be litigation, the corporate attorneys must take swift action to make sure evidence is preserved for the case.
A lot of people know that the Walker Church burned down mid 2012. But did you know I sent an email to the Minneapolis City Attorney, and the Clerk’s Office, demanding preservation of evidence?
Here is the email, in 3 parts:
I do not recall receiving any response to this email. Don’t you think that is strange. Where is the evidence?
I went to my sent box, and printed what was there as the email from mid 2012 to the City Attorney, through my Sharp scanner/copier, and it’s supposed to email a pdf. Try this.
This post was first published on jillclarkspeaks on March 13, 2012.
***
December 26, 2012, I hand-carried to the MN Supreme Court: 1) an Objection to the Referee’s December 20, 2012 ruling (objecting on the grounds of various constitutional violations – none of which have been addressed, ever, in the proceedings); and 2) a motion to seal the December 20 order.
The Director’s response to the motion, by my calulation, was due January 2, 2013. The Director filed a response 5 days later – on January 7, 2013. See first page scan, below and FILED stamp.
That is the kind of “rule violation” that the Director would charge an attorney like me for (you know, an Attorney who speaks). And yet the Director’s response was considered by the Supreme Court, not mention made of the lateness of the response.
[I want to pause here and say that when (supposedly) I had a filing due by January 14 (or January 11 – depending on which version of the order you consider), within TWO DAYS there was an order claiming to “suspend” me. So the Court waits for its Director’s response, but when it’s a private attorney, two days, and WHAM suspended? What’s up with that?]
I note that on October 17, 2012, I told the entire Supreme Court that I had been falsely imprisoned at the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and that Assistant Director Craig Klausing had violated court order(s), and that he had repeatedly violated my confidentiality rights. I see not one mention of THAT anywhere in any MN Supreme Court order.
That Assistant Director again violated my confidentiality after October 17, 2012.
Just how much is the Director’s Office going to be protected? What price does the public have to pay for this system?
I don’t think the Public is fooled by these antics. It’s pretty obvious to many people, I think, that the MN Supreme Court protects some and sacrifices others. I feel proud that I stood up as an American, and that I am being punished for that. But hey, enough is enough. When the jig it up – sometimes the best thing to do it wave the white flag and say – we get it, we goofed. Peace.
Could you please do something about the black screen and “robot” that are telling me I have to either pay for another year of jillclarkspeaks.com or lose rights? I have decided I do not want to renew. Whoever/whaterver they are, they do not have a right to gag my blog.
I reported this prior, and the problem continues.
Please attend to this ASAP.
I granted immunity to everybody at 12:41 a.m. this morning, 2/9/13.
That grant of immunity was based on agreed-upon settlement terms: agreement to a consent decree.
I am willing to make another grant of immunity at this time, for conduct that occurred since the last grant. But that grant will be based on an agreement to cease and desist (conduct already agreed would be ceased) and the equipment must be delinked/picked up (that’s not an invitation to enter my house,by the way; if you have something here post a comment and arrangements will be made).
This offer will remain open for 1 hour.
And anyone selling digital data comprising or from “Songs for a Recovering Planet” or the new CD’s, must cease and desist within one hour as well.
In 2011, I filed an appeal for a client. A motion was quickly filed to dismiss the appeal, claiming to have been filed pro se. It looked like lawyer for to me. On behalf of the client, I briefed the problem with ghost-writing, citing federal law.
The reply brief also seemed like lawyer work, and strove to defend the lawyers that seemed to have written it.
Whoever wrote it cited to a purported ABA “formal” ethics opinion.
Formal Opinion 07-446 May 5, 2007
Undisclosed Legal Assistance to Pro Se Litigants
I went online at the time and was able to obtain a purported pdf of the Formal Opinion free of charge.
I save it in the computer, but when I went back to that pdf recently, the last two pages were blank.
I went online just now to try to compare copies (the online version with the one I’d saved) but the ABA site said I had to be a “member” to get the opinions, and/or to pay for downloading. This is new to me, but also objectionable, because lawyers cite to the ABA advisory opinions in furtherance of their legal arguments. A lawyer practicing in opposition to those arguments cannot access the law if it is expensive and hard to get (and certainly I should not have to give my name and contact information.)
Further, I don’t know what will “download” into my computer if I click download, and I don’t want to pay for spyware of a virus.
Attached as scans of screen prints from the ABA site, as well as the now somewhat destructed opinion obtained a while back.
Below is a link of the page that I was taken to in attempting to research this issue today:
Please check my stats. They cannot be accurate, as the total number of hits does not match what is represented for same in the bar graph.
Also, on the left-hand bar the “tagging” section is not a full view. (I was having this problem on a different blog, but that has cleared up.)
I start this with the appeal brief, because it lays out issues with the way this criminal case was handled in Ramsey County Court.
I was also just shocked by the Court of Appeals order (at least the order that was presented to my firm), because it refused to consider contemporaneous computer printouts from the St. Paul Police Department, and instead “found facts” on appeal (which is supposedly a no no), in order to not have to consider the conduct of police and a case of pretty blatant Brady violation(s).
Order – Argument – Amending Schedule
Order – Consolidating Cases[1]
Jury Trial Day 1– November 22 2011
Jury Trial Day 2– November 23 2011
Jury Trial Day 3 –November 24, 2011
Jury Trial Day 4 — November 29, 2011
Jury Trial Day 5 — November 30, 2010
Jury Trial Day 7 — December 2, 2011
Transcript of STrickland at Omnibus hearing
Suttles all 3 reporters deGrande sig block
Suttles all 3 reporters Kinning sig blocjk
Trial documents
Suttles and Drljic proposed jury instructions
Post JIGS Drljic Suttles from Court
FELONY TRIAL ROTATION 11 08 10
Commentary on 12 1 10 session of Jury Instructions plus some cases
Letter from Judge Bohe 12 8 10
Post trial motions with cover letter and fax transmission confirmation
Omnibus hearing
Motions re Rasmussen isues Defenses
Cover letter and Drljic Joinder
Transcript of STrickland at Omnibus hearing
I recall how much work it was in this case just ordering the transcript. Multiple court reporters to deal with, request that I re-do the orders, and various communications. Here’s a sample:
Sent: Mon 4/11/2011 8:49 AM frm Montpetit, Susie (CR2 Bohr) <Susie.Montpetit@courts.state.mn.us>
I will wait for the mailed request. Thank you.
—–Original Message—–
From: Jill Clark [mailto:jill@jillclarkpa.com]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 8:49 AM
To: Montpetit, Susie (CR2 Bohr)
Subject: RE: Suttles and Drljic transcripts
Ms. Kinning is signing the pdf and mailing into the court.
Can you do that as well?
Thanks,
Jill Clark, Esq.
Jill Clark, P.A.
Telephone: 763/417-9102
Fax: 763/417-9112
This email may contain confidential or privileged communications. If you are not the proper recipient of this email, please destroy it and let us know that you have done so. If you are a client and want to discuss the risks associated with emails, or if you do not wish to have us communicate via email, please let us know.
—–Original Message—–
From: Montpetit, Susie (CR2 Bohr) [mailto:Susie.Montpetit@courts.state.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 8:40 AM
To: Jill Clark
Subject: RE: Suttles and Drljic transcripts
I have not.
—–Original Message—–
From: Jill Clark [mailto:jill@jillclarkpa.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 8:45 AM
To: Montpetit, Susie (CR2 Bohr); christinadegrande@yahoo.com; Kinning, Patricia (CR Bohr)
Subject: RE: Suttles and Drljic transcripts
Did you get your transcript requests in the mail?
Jill Clark, Esq.
Jill Clark, P.A.
Telephone: 763/417-9102
Fax: 763/417-9112
This email may contain confidential or privileged communications. If you are not the proper recipient of this email, please destroy it and let us know that you have done so. If you are a client and want to discuss the risks associated with emails, or if you do not wish to have us communicate via email, please let us know.
Getting the trial started was quite a matter. I’ve included the word doc that Ramsey County clerks often send out (kind of like a civil trial block). But we did not start as originally ordered. The Prosecution declared that it was switching prosecutors at the last minute to one who was (conveniently) out of town. I would have thought the original prosecutor would have wanted to try the case. But then, he had likely become a witness due to a last-minute morning-of (non-recorded, no notes) interview of St. Strickland the day of the Omnibus (Strickland was one of the most important witnesses in the case). The block trial lists usually come via email, and he’s one:
Fri 11/19/2010 4:02 PM, from Harms, Hillary (LC Bohr) <Bohr.LawClerk@courts.state.mn.us>
copy to ‘Cory, Sarah’ <Sarah.Cory@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US>; ‘Finneran, Carole’ <Carole.Finneran@state.mn.us>; ‘Pinto, David’ <david.pinto@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US>; ‘frank.schulte@yahoo.com’; ‘shereen.askalani@co.ramsey.mn.us’; ‘seamusmahoney@hotmail.com’; Samec, Margaret <margaret.samec@co.ramsey.mn.us>; ‘erik.sandvick@pubdef.state.mn.us’; Leja, Tamara <Tamara.Leja@state.mn.us>; ‘kaarin.long@co.ramsey.mn.us’; ‘elizabeth.lamin@co.ramsey.mn.us’; Jill Clark <jill@jillclarkpa.com>; ‘Dusterhoft, Richard’ <Richard.Dusterhoft@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US>; ‘Galvin, Margaret’ <Margaret.Galvin@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US> chriszipko@yahoo.com; ‘Kugler, Karen’ <Karen.Kugler@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US>; ‘lisa.hallberg@pubdef.state.mn.us’
Hello-
Please find attached the updated jury trial list for Judge Bohr. We will be starting a jury trial on Monday for Daniel Drljic and Tamika Suttles, along with hearing a few other cases that are coming in Monday as well. That jury trial should last the entire week if it goes. Have a great weekend!
HILLARY A. HARMS, Esq.
Law Clerk to the Honorable Gail Chang Bohr
15 W. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
Telephone: 651-266-8215
Fax: 651-767-8996
I recall I had a hard time getting a prosecutor to take responsibility for the case. The one trying the case got to say she was not that familiar with it, the original Prosecutor was nowhere to be seen by the time of trial, and the Supervisor was hard to reach.
Correspondence
Fax Cover Sheet District Court, AG, RCAO 01
Post trial motions
Post trial motions with cover letter and fax transmission confirmation
Prosecutorial Misconduct in America 