In June 2012, an order was filed on D.Minn. ECF purporting to have been signed by the Honorable John R. Tunheim. (Given the issues I have observed lately, I would need verificiation of e-filed orders.)
I, Defendant therein, quickly appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I used a personal credit card, the D. Minn. ECF had me enter my credit card numbers in. I am now concerned as to who had access to that information, and whether the Eighth Circuit was ever paid that money. I would like the money back, actually.
I attach notice of appeal
Here are additional documents from the litigation. Although it was presented to me by a doc I received via email (which is now not locatable in my inbox), that the OLPR motion to summarily dismiss the appeal (whatever that means) was granted. It was a one word order, “granted.”
I asked at the time who the Panel was, but was told I could not know then.
You can see from the printout and pic of the D. Minn. ECF that there is an entry saying the Eighth Circuit granted the motion, but that order now appears nowhere on the Eighth Circuit website/docket.
I will also note that in August 2012, I traveled to Madison Wisconsin and looked at the Eighth Circuit website from a computer I did not own and it did not show the appeal entered into the system at all.
This should be investigated. I am publicly asking whether Judges Diana Murphy, Raymond Gruender, and Duane Benton ruled on a motion for TRO (filed by me). I also cannot see an order in the Eighth Circuit system for that. That was also a one word “order” when it reached my email inbox (it is also not locatable now).
Here are some links that were within what was presented to me as the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals website
https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom
These are letters I filed when I noticed peculiar things. I don’t see these on the Eighth Circuit docket at all.
Attachment to August 13 2012 letter
letter to eighth circuit August 13 2012
Sorry, here’s an update. This was printed off what was present to me in my browser as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals website.
Here’s another doc (also printed off what was presented to me online as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals website). This one says Notice of Appeal filed 8/2/12, did not reach 8th Circuit until 8/6, but order/judgment granted 8/2.
This needs to be investigated. It’s just too easy for some non-judge to type the words “granted,” and shoot out a doc.
On Wed 7/27/2011 3:00 PM this emamil text was sent from allison.hollbrook@courts.state.mn.us
to: Jill Clark <jill@jillclarkpa.com>; Schooler, David <DSchooler@Briggs.com>; copy to Schade, Margaret <MSchade@Briggs.com>; Bratvold, Diane <DBratvold@Briggs.com>; Reese Duginske, Tara <TReeseDuginske@Briggs.com>
My apologies for just getting back to everyone. Judge Porter is actually retiring on Monday, August 8. He will continue to work as a Senior Judge after that date, but I needed to get approval for him to keep the case after his retirement before scheduling anything. After 8/8, he will only be in the office on certain days, so that will limit the options for this hearing.
He is available on Tuesday 8/9 from 10:30 – 12pm. His next available date after that would be Monday 8/15, anytime in the morning. Please let me know if either of these dates work. Thank you.
Allison Holbrook
Judicial Clerk to Judge Charles A. Porter, Jr.
(612) 348-6302
Judge Porter was presiding in the “JACC” case (see earlier post). This summer, 2012, some friends/clients of mine were trying to help me research a qui tam case. Around that time, I received both phone and email messages from Judge Porter’s clerk, Allison (see above). I was trying to be on medical leave. She indicated that I (as counsel for Stepnes) had a short timeframe to pick up hard-drives from that case. This was about some physical objects that Judge Porter took possession of at an oral argument about Stepnes’ 2008 federal civil case. The overlapping issue was a violation of Judge Porter’s order prohibiting Minneapolis from accessing data obtained from hard-drives from Stepnes’ computers seized by Minneapolis police.
To my recollection at around the time of that oral argument, Judge Porter took possession of disks that the Minneapolis City Attorney Office had, which contained data from the Stepnes hard-drives. He already had, in his chambers, the physical hard-drives, resulting from an emergency matter that Stepnes had filed in spring 2008. In 2009, Magistrate Judges Keyes had ordered that the City produce documents relating to this hard-drive issue, without regard to claims of attorney-client privilege. As part of that production, which was assembled, to my understanding, by James A. Moore, assisted by Sara Lathrop (both Assistant City Attorneys). As part of that, they communicated with the Minneapolis Police Department crime lab, specifically the computer forensics unit.
And as part of that, they were able to obtain some of the “notes” that the officer trained in computers took when Sgt. Ritschel was relaying his “assignment.” One of those documents came to me (Jill Clark) in a sealed manilla envelope, with the representation that the MCAO had not looked in it. My recollection of the documents, was that it was the notes of Officer Hansen, indicating that Ritschel had asked him to look for references to Jill Clark in the hard-drives around the issue of the “contest” Stepnes was thinking of creating.
I do very specifically recall that my name (Jill Clark) was on that paper.
So I was on the horns of a dilemma. I had a client, and I believe it is of record in the oral argument before Porter that the client was aware of all this. I did not want to hurt the client’s case. But there were at that times, emergenging a fairly disconcerting number of references to me, Jill Clark, in the factual fodder of my client’s cases.
My sense at the time was that: 1) Minneapolis police saw me as a thorn in their side, for all the typical reasons that criminal defense attorneys are so, probably more with regard to me, given my ability to ferret out evidence and my unwillineness to back down; 2) I could see that there were groups that really did not want me to become a judge. This had been evidence for some time. But things picked up steam when I ran for Minnesota Supreme Court in 2008, and did pretty well in the primary after spending around $1,500. Although I also believe there are MPD officers who would have wanted me to be a judge, I felt secure in my belief that there were numerous officers in positions of power who, for themselves, or other aspects of the entrenched power structure in Minneapolis/Hennepin County, did not want me to: a) have any power; b) have any authority; or c) get behind the scenes to see what was happening. The hard part for little me, was that these groups began aligning around their mutual desire to keep me out of office.
So although I could observe it around the edges (and it was not rocket science, either, these are fairly routine things in politics, those in power want to stay in power), I knew that I lacked the resources to investigate and prove it, and the judiciary stood in the way, because they were a gateway through which any case had to pass to get to a jury (and although some of them likely supported me, just like the police, there were those in positions of power who appeared to me intent on maintaining the status quo). Plus, I am duty bound to put my clients first.
So when I saw the paper, with the reference to Jill Clark, I was not just on the horns of a dilemma with regard to the client. (Lawyers are required to be polemic and the hypothesis I needed to be presenting was the one that benefited the client.) The other dilemma was what to do with the evidence. To blast it out into public, it seemed, would give my foes exactly what they wanted, the name Jill Clark, associated with some allegation of criminality (ironically, there was this “fraud” claim that the MPD claimed to be reserving). For those who have a public reputation to uphold, even the allegation that you committed a crime is harmful, whether or not you are ultimately vindicated. When it comes to election cycles, if your foes time it just right, the allegation can be out there, and the election over, before you have the opportunity to be vindicated.
And I had already observed a fair amount of such conduct in the past (for example, the case involving the arrest of Al Flowers, Sr. when he was running for Mayor of Minneapolis, a civil case filed in Hennepin County, where Judge Porter was also assigned).
At the Stepnes oral argument, I raised the issue of what to do with this evidence. Jim Moore was told what it was, and I indicated on the record that I trusted him. Michael Mahoney knew what it was, as did the client. The manilla envelope was taken back to Porter’s chambers, and by the time he came out, he indicated he had seen it. He was sitting on the bench, high above the rest of us, in his robe. When he said to give the envelope to him (as he had said to give him hard-drives, disks), I viewed it as an order.
I did not view it as a choice.
Now, I don’t know what happened to the envelope. In summer 2012 when my firm was asked to send someone down to pick up the hard-drives, I exchanged emails with Allison Hollbrook (see her email address and telephone number above). I specifically asked about a manilla folder and she responded back that there was nothing like that. This is not verbatim. I can’t cut and paste that email into this blog, because when I went to look for it this morning, it was missing.
I also recall emails from her specifically about Judge Porter’s stint on Veteran’s Court (and we had discussed in my office about Veteran’s Court money being federal money). Those emails are missing from my inbox as well.
I just checked my sent box, and they are missing from there as well.
Now, that is curious. Because I had observed that other emails are missing from my inbox, but gone and found a lot of the string in my sent box.
However this happened, it affected both my inbox and my sent box.
Here are some documents from the Stepnes case (and a case that went the other way at the Eighth Circuit – wish we could have prevailed in that way):
Affidavit of Thomas Evenstad Amended
FINAL objections to Magisrate ruling to ADM WORD CUT THE REAL FINAL
Stepnes Aff from 9 10 09 motion
I’ll upload more in a bit.
But I need to note something that is very curious. Jeanette Bead, an attorney for the defense in the federal civil case, and working at the time for the law firm Levine Sullivan (see full name here on that firm’s stationary; MDS JMB to J Clark 030820112 – PDF (00486516)
sent my firm numerous emails as the litigation wore on for years. Now, I have heard she is no longer at that firm. And, curiously, when I went to check my inbox just now, there was only one email from her, and that was just a read receipt. My recollection is that she sent me numerous emails, attaching numerous documents. Those appear now to be missing form my inbox.
I just checked my inbox and there were no emails sent to her, again strange. I do recall sending emails to her, many over the course of the litigation.
So now I just checked my inbox again and was able to locate more Jeannette-bead-sent emails. I am not a technical enough person to explain this.
Here’s an email from Jbead@lsks.com, sent Mon 3/8/2010 5:40 PM to Jill Clark <jill@jillclarkpa.com>; mcmahoney@mahoneyanderson.com; James.Moore@ci.minneapolis.mn.us; ‘Borger, John P.’ <JBorger@faegre.com>, copy to Michael Sullivan <MSullivan@lskslaw.com>; Walker, Leita <lwalker@faegre.com>; Chad Bowman <CBowman@lskslaw.com> which contained the following text:
All,
Please see the attached correspondence in the above referenced action. Regards,
Jeanette
Jeanette Melendez Bead
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, L.L.P.
1050 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-508-1134 (direct dial)
202-861-9888 (facsimile)
and attached this doc: 3-8-2010 Correspondence to Judge Keyes (00285360)
Here’s a word doc proposed order from that firm:
Proposed Order (CBS Motion) (00278492)
I can’t explain why my inbox shows no emails from Leita Walker at Faegre & Benson. It’s hard for me to believe that in the years of litigation she sent no emails herself. Her email address is contained in this email from jbead@lsks.com, sent 11/19/09, 10:41 AM to jill@jillclarkllc.com, copy to Michael C. Mahoney <mcmahoney@mahoneyanderson.com>; ‘Moore, James A.’ <James.Moore@ci.minneapolis.mn.us>; ‘Borger, John P.’ <JBorger@faegre.com>; Michael Sullivan <MSullivan@lskslaw.com>; Chad Bowman <CBowman@lskslaw.com>; Walker, Leita <lwalker@faegre.com>
Ms. Clark,
With regard to the materials relating to the forensic review, as we have stated previously, we will not review the materials in our possession in preparation for the forthcoming depositions in this case.
As for the larger issue of our possession of the materials in the first instance, we are amenable to turning over to a mutually agreeable neutral the electronic files and CDs relating to the forensic review, provided that we be permitted to consult those materials in connection with the resolution of the plaintiffs’ disqualification motion and any other motion implicating the issue of the forensic review. As you might expect, to the extent that plaintiffs’ disqualification motion makes assertions about what CBS counsel possessed or what they reviewed, we may well need to consult the materials to defend against plaintiffs’ assertions. In this regard, we note that, to date, there has been no finding that CBS counsel possess attorney-client privileged information, nor do we think this is the case, as we have previously explained. We understand your position (that this is a decision that we are not entitled to make) but we believe that the unusual circumstances under which this issue arose mean that the usual rules simply do not apply. We also think Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4 is inapposite. Indeed, the Rule itself does not require counsel to return purportedly privileged materials that fall within its ambit, and the comment to the Rule expressly states that the Rule does not address the issue of whether documents must be returned under the circumstances presented. In any event, let us know your thoughts about our proposal.
As for deposition scheduling, you will recall that we noticed the depositions of the various plaintiffs for the week of November 16 and agreed to cancel those depositions based on our understanding that we would be able to complete those depositions in December. As you know, we have been trying to schedule these depositions for many months and agreed to postpone the noticed November dates in an effort to work cooperatively to move forward with discovery. We then proposed depositions based on the dates provided and asked whether the proposed schedule was acceptable to you. You indicated that you would like to take Sgt. Ritschel on December 2 and noted that you wanted to take an entire day of smaller depositions. Without giving us an opportunity to respond, you advise us that you are disappointed with the way we have performed this “function,” demanding that we give you dates in January and February and stating that you will unilaterally allocate the depositions in an equitable manner. Once again, it appears to us that you have gone off in a direction that was unnecessary under the circumstances. Nevertheless, in an effort to move the ball forward, we propose the following schedule for December depositions:
December 2 Sgt. Ritschel
December 14 Day of depositions noticed by plaintiffs
December 17 Jan Girard
December 18 Ray Neset
December 19 Dave Holland
Please let us know if this schedule is acceptable.
Jeanette & Michael
Jeanette Melendez Bead
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, L.L.P.
1050 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-508-1134 (direct dial)
202-861-9888 (facsimile)
This email appears to have been sent around the time of the “hard-drives” litigation, in the Stepnes federal civil case. I recall how much time I spent parsing through the hard-drive data, and that defense counsel for CBS seemed permitted to just give general denials. And, I believe they ended up keeping their disks of the data.
Another curious thing about this litigation was that CBS, after I gave multiple notices to that company’s general counsel office, as well as their local outlet, WCCO, to preserve video of the interview of Stepnes and his attorney (Jill Clark), either that was not done, or we were not given full disclosure about what occurred.
As a part of that issue, CBS’ counsel disclosed that an email had been sent from the General Counsel’s office to personnel at WCCO, bearing the re line, “save your tapes.” The specifics of this were litigated, but a summary version is that CBS through counsel claimed that it had done its duty to order preservation of the data, but that we could not see the email, because it was attorney-client privileged. Stepnes litigated this issue, attempting to have precedent from another circuit adopted in this circuit (both Zubulake, which is the cornerstone case for Magistrate and district judges on preservation of discoverable data) and a more specific case holding that litigation hold letters are not privileged).
The Magistrate Judge told CBS to provide him with a copy of the save your tapes email. I don’t have the vantage point to know whether that occurred, whether if it occurred it was the actual/full document. But at one point when Stepnes was up at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal, I asked that the clerk’s office transmit the document to the Eighth Circuit so taht could would have it to review.
At that point, the Magistrate Judge indicated that he no longer had it. We had a phone conference (which is always difficult for an attorney because there is often no court reporter) and the Magistrate Judge suggested that CBS transmit the email again. CBS counsel balked at that, taking the position that the Magistrate Judge lacked jurisdiction because the case was up on appeal.
Stepnes ended up having to make a motion to the Eighth Circuit Panel, which did not rule on it.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, what happens to evidence when it is taken in camera? At this important stage in the proceedings, the system breaks down unless the items receive exhibit numbers, are kept in a safe and secure place, and are transmitted to the reviewing court.
Second, doesn’t the whole notion of extra-judicial information break down with regard to in camera evidence? If the judge knows something about the case (perhaps even vital to the case) that the lawyers don’t know, that could skew the results of a case or at a minimum cause one party to feel lack of trust.
In State v. Philander Jenkins, I had proposed that Minnesota adopt precedent from another jurisdiction which favored lawyer review of document in camera. Documents would not be visible at that point to the general public, but the lawyers were not kept from seeing them. That case pointed out that the lawyers have a superior knowledge of the facts of the case from which to determine whether a document is relevant. And, a party cannot even make a relevance argument unless first the data is viewed.
As I stated to the Magistrate Judge in the Stepnes case, what if that one email was a “smoking gun?” What if it said, for example, destroy that video of Stepnes and Clark. That would have proven the Eighth Circuit’s high spoliation standard (for reasons that are unclear the Eighth Circuit declined in Stepnes to move in line with other circuits, and continues to demand that a party prove intent to show spoliation; this is impossible in modern litigation where evidentiary hearings are rarely afforded for that argument). But Stepnes would never learn during the litigation, what that email said.
And, at least from Stepnes’ vantage point, the Eighth Circuit would never know, either.
In the phone conference about the “save your tapes” missing email, the Magistrate Judge indicated that usually he gives in camera documents back to the party that provided them. But that doesn’t fit here, because I provided documents (was ordered to provide documents) detailing the attorney-client privileged nature of the hard-drives data and how it could have been used against Stepnes. And that was never returned to me.
A placeholder is required for sealed documents – why not for in camera submissions? At least, then, there is a record of it occurring.
So every way he turned, Stepnes got the downside of the litigation. Now, for all of our thousands of hours of work litigating the hard-drive issue, Stepnes was required, through his attorney, to incriminate himself. His foes skated free, not even scrutinized, and then he was told that he could not litigate the substance of the issue at summary judgment (or go to trial on it), because of the earlier litigation.
I’m working on putting information out that there will help solve problems in this community. This is a learning process for me. I have a pretty good knowlede of technology for a lawyer (that aint saying much), but there are technical things I do not understand.
For example, I am actively working on this post, which is about the Stepnes case. I go to view my firm’s internal file folder for the Stepnes case, and in particular the “hard-drives” litigation (which I am working on right now), and the “sealed” exhibits folder is empty.
I go to the placeholders to try to figure out what sealed exhibits are missing, and the first one that I encounter is a Minneapolis police report. First, police reports should be public. The notion that they are not because someone is investigating something is often abused. People in the system can print off just about any Minneapolis PD repor they want. It’s the public who cannot, and that inpedes and hinders us from scrutinizing police.
Second, what happened to those sealed exhibits. I stage exhibits for filing on ECF, and in the case of sealed exhibits in this case, we were exchanging them between counsel via email. But when I went to my sent box just now to pull up those emails that had exhibits, to try to locate a different source of the missing sealed exhibits, emails to Sullivan were few in numbers. So something is actively changing about the sent box (I though I just went thorugh this, above).
Also, I have noticed that when a lawyer files on ECF, the system notes the “path” to the document in the lawyer’s computer. This means that if someone can hack into the ECF computer system, they can pick any case they want, look at the document the lawyer filed, and follow the path back to the folders surrounding that document. Those folders regularly contain: a) sealed or otherwise confidential evidence; b) attorney-client privileged communications; and c) other sensitive data.
The notion that a lawyer is now required to filing electronically, although it sounded like a good idea at the time, has brought with it a whole host of problems. Given that this Stepnes case has already proven that certain Minneapolis police do not respect the Fourth Amendment, and warrants, or even court orders, that they will grab a citizen’s computer data no matter what is contained (including the inviolate privilege between attorney and client), and given the type of data missing from this particular file in my office and the path that I showed to the data by filing on ECF, I am recommending as special prosecutor a full audit of the District of Minnesota ECF system.
The entire system, as it exists now, should be preserved. That is forensic data, and everyone who knows anything about this topic would agree, the audit does no good if we cannot prove where the problems were.
Attorneys and judges should be trained to spot problems with data, and ways to safeguard the data in their possession and control.
CBS Defendants’ Supplemental Interrogatory Resp (00239826)
CBS-Murphy Interrogatory Responses (First) (00206361)
CBS-Murphy RFA Responses (First) (00206259)
CHART OF PRIVILEGED EMAILS draf 03
CHART OF PRIVILEGED EMAILS draf 03
Lathro letter after Porter order
Lathrop Sept 2 letter second after order
1 a EXHIBIT first page Petition
1 a EXHIBIT May 30 08 petition memorandum and Clark affidavit
3 EXHIBIT Jue 2 2008 Transcript
4 b EXHIBIT attorney names assigning Letters
5 EXHIBITDeposition of Deborah Everson
6 ExhibitTr of Voice Mail Msg to Siegel 7 16 08
7 through 11 EXH w placeholder for 10
10 EXHIBIT noticeofconventionalfiling-ext
12 EXHIBIT noticeofconventionalfiling-ext
13 EXHIBIT noticeofconventionalfiling-ext
15 EXH emails between Clark and Lathrop
16 Exhibit emails between counsel 6 12 9 and City Supplemental Responses (so I just uploaded this doc from the “exhibits” folder, and as I was thinking about it, I went to check archived emails, and though there are many with Lathrop in that batch, this particular email, the one I’m looking for right now, is not there. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think Sara Lathrop, herself, has the technical acumen to accomplish something like that. Given what is at stake for people like Stepnes seeking justice, this should be investigated by appropriate technical personnel.)
17 EXHIBIT Emial form Clark to counsel (I also searched for this email in archives, but it also was not there. Now, this email is interesting, because it is specifically about MPD forensic police computer experts, and the way they handle (or mishandle) computer data. This one needs investigation.)
19 EXHIBIT letter from Lathrop to Clark 8 31 09
20 EXHIBIT Lathrop Sept 2 letter second after order
21 EXHIBIT emails between Clark and Lathrop
22 Exh Lathrop ltr 9 8 09 first one (I checked for this one in archives, and it was there. Can’t tell how long it’s been there (or where it’s been), but the “from” is missing. It just had a date, and a “to” – which could have relevance to a forensic investigator. Email was sent Tue 9/8/2009 4:57 PM, and given the letter, presumably from Lathrop, although could be support staff, but most likely the Minneapolis City Attorney Office).
24 Exhibit email from Clark to Lathrop (I check for this in archives, and it is not there. This was (per the email copy/scan, which I printed off myself), this was an email stating it was from sara.lathrop@ci.minneapolis.mn.us. That is the OLD address for the MCAO, I know they changed it, I don’t know why, but that might be relevant to a forensic investigator.)
25 EXHIBIT emails between counsel (this one’s missing from archives)
26 EXHIBIT email from Clark to counsel (also missing from archives)
27 Exhibit email from Clark to counsel 9 9 9 (also missing from archives)
28 EXHIBIT Clark email to counsel 9 9 9 (this is also missing from archives; it’ an email to John Borger at Faegre, and I wrote it in furtherance of my ethical duty to correct the record when I notice I have made a mistake. Given the attacks on my license over the past years, this is an interesting one to turn up missing. I also want to correct the record that I did make a mistake in the hard-drives litigation. I have wanted to correct this for some time (I even mentioned it in a phone conference with Magistrate Judge Keyes) but frankly my disability and other things dominating my time got in the way. I had stated at some point in the numerous pages of documents I was generating that a certain email was not in the emails 100 or so emails excerpted by Leita Walker, but not found until a long way into “papa bear.” I did later find it in the 100 or so emails. Now, given my increased education since then, I can’t say definitively how any of that happened. For all I know, someone put it in there later. But at least I have cleared my own conscience. I do want to note, however, that judges make errors all the time, and they do not have consequences for mistakes. Misconduct for public people has to be “intentional,” why not for lawyers?)
I want to note that this (above) letter, in which Sara Lathrop corrects her earlier statement(s) is still in my firm’s emails.
29 Exhibit emails between counsel 9 7 and 8 09 (missing from email archives)
30 Exhibit email from Lathrop to counsel 9 9 9 (missing from email archives)
November 10 2009 cover letter and bates docs re key docs (this is the term I was searching for above, the “Key documents” file which I understand was created by Leita Walker from the hard-drives, and which above I refer to as the 100-or-so docs. Faegre also sent the hard-drive data to a computer consultant, but I’m not sure exactly what was done there. I had to take special effort to get key-word-searchable versions of what those computer consultants had done, and I did eventually get a disk, but it is impossible for me to know whether it was a full disclosure.)
32 EXHIBIT Emails between counsel (Dixon) (so now, when I go to search archives, my view of the Outlook program on my computer is limited, I can’t see down far enough to click on the link to the archives, and, the colored bar that is usually above, is not there.)
33 Exhibit CBS 04 (I usually transmitted letters to Levine Sullivan via email, so I was checking to see whether there was an email that matched the date of this letter. I note that now, the colored bar at the top is back, as is the link to archives at the bottom of the inbox. I am not alone. It’s pretty clear what has happened to modern litigation, and it’s devastating on many levels. There is no way a little guy like Paul Stepnes could ever hire enough computer people to be a match for the MPD computer unit plus the consultants hired by Faegre & Benson. This calls for a technical investigation, but also a new doctrine within the judiciary to deal with the actuality of modern litigation. What we are doing is not working.)
35 EXHIBIT video tape label (It took me the longest time just to get good representations of the labels on the numberous video tapes that WCCO put in play in this litigation. First, I had to work hard just to get to see the videotapes, but by then, I could not be sure they had not been changed in some way. Also, I hired a PI to take pictures of the labels, and that’s expensive for a solo practitioner. But when I got the pictures from him (a truste consultant for years), they were blurred. I had had that PI take pictures numerous times prior, he is good at it, and I had never had blurred pictures from him. This should be investigated, but more than that, the problem is that the “big guys” have so much ability to pressure outside consultant from behind the scenes. Those of us who work hard to obey the law are at a disadvantage, because we won’t stoop to those measures. But the pressure techniques are regularly rewarded in the world of litigation, formally, and informally. If Robert W. McDowell was pressured, and given what I have been through in the past two years or so, I wouldn’t be surprised, it must have felt terrible for him. The pressure is not just bad because of what it does to the integrity of the data, and the results of litigation, but because of what it does to people. Pressuring people to be someone other than who they are, to live in a way in which their outsides are not congruent with their insides, is a whole other “cost” of corruption. It causes ulcers, and depression, and takes all kinds of human tolls. My sense has always been (and I guess I am a Rousseauian at heart), that given the chance, most of the people will right themselves. Most of the people want to do things the rights way. It feels right to them and therefore congruent. Doing right needs to be rewarded. Currently, in corrupt environments, doing wrong is rewarded. All of the technical rules of law were supposed to be a way of ensuring that we would do right in the system. Instead, they are a way that many judges keep from having to deal with the crux of the case (the civil multi-million version of “getting off on a technicality that the man in the street is so outraged by when it is a poor Black criminal defendant). I can’t say I totally understand the “duck and cover” nature of the judiciary. At times, judges seem so willing to tackle huge issues, “high profile” cases. At other times, there is a tendency to figure out a way not to face the facts and apply the law. I don’t know if this is an issue with courage or what. I am not behind the scenes and can only glimpse that culture. But I do think that judges who have to campaign, at a minimum, get toughed up. People don’t usually self-select to run for public office if they are not willing to take the slings and arrows that come with that endeavor. And if you have not been criticized much before, and have a thin skin, just run for office and you will be cured of that in a hurry. The public is entitled to a bench that is willing to apply the law to the facts. If we are not doing that in this business, there isn’t much point. I can’t say I know how to solve this problem. I am not sure quite how one instills courage in others. But I can say that, at least in my belief, if we apply the law to the facts and let the chips fall where they may, that could turn the whole system around. This most insidious part of our business, this behind-the-scenes culture is a tough nut to crack. Those of us on the outside, who refuse to participate in it, cant’ get at it, can’t prove it. I am the poster child of what happens when we try. Lots of “fake outrage” and snap-back, ethics charges, you name it. And us little guys don’t get Fourth Amendment protections, either. So, once again, the “bad guys” are getting privacy for their doings. We are sitting ducks for any tiny infraction someone might observe (or conjure up). In the modern world and in particular given the role of computers, the notion of privacy is not only outmoded, it’s harming many people. It’s clear to me that nearly everything I do, say, write, own, is accessible to my foes. But to me, they are masked, shadow figures, creeping around in some digital netherworld that I cannot access. Litigation can only be fair if it truly is an equal playing field. What is going on now, is not. I do not have the technical acumen to posit this solution, but the adversarial system is not helping. European systems have had more success with neutral masters gathering evidence. And maybe that’s a start. How different the Stepnes litigation could have been if that video had been available!)
However, even cases where the little guy gets the video, can go wrong. In the 2009 Farkarlun case, the video was shocking (shocked the modern community). But we never got to the jury. I do not know why. But surely some was worried what could occur if a jury saw that video, and got to rule on the treatment of Trisha Farkarlun. Add to that by the time we got to summary judgment, the Minnesota Court of Appeals had ruled on Crawley and Farkarlun, and her criminal conviction had been reversed!
Interestingly, the criminal prosecutor in Farkarlun, former MPR officer Judd Gushwa, happened to mention to me in the Farkarlun courtroom one day what a strong case Stepnes had, and how a jury would be outraged (can’t recall the words, but that was the notion). Judd and I could not be more different, in many ways. But the fact that he also thought Stepnes was a strong case, must have gotten through to someone.
So much hard work went into the Farkarlun 2009 case from this end. It became very frustrating, then disheartening, then just felt like wasted effort, to work on cases, to prove it up, only to watch (well sense, really) someone work it behind the scenes to bring it down. That finally collapsed me as much as anything else – the complete waste of time of it all.
But what I went through pales to what Trisha Farkarlun went through. She can’t live anywhere any more. She has to keep moving. Because her foes are so numerous and so powerful. (I know what that is like. I have experienced some of it myself.) The 2009 case arose when Farkarlun let her guard down for about an hour or so and came inside the jurisdiction of MPD.
That’s not freedom of movement. And no one should have to live like that.
And I have no idea what happened to the numerous disks filed under seal. If we look, will those be gone too?
What’s the point of Farkarlun appealing to the Eighth Circuit if that court can’t watch the video?
But all the crap rolls down hill to the little guy. Clark’s going to get whacked because she was in the hospital and couldn’t brief the appeal, rather than the people manipuating behind the scenes. With power and authority comes responsibility. Responsibility should roll up, not down. If people don’t want that responsiblity, that’s fine, but then don’t take the job. Or if you are tired and start objectfying people, get out of the job.
Government workers have too many protections from responsibility. It’s time to even that playing field, as well. Either we all get privileges and immunities, or no one does.
And when lawyers get complained about, they often roll it downhill onto their client. The result is that the people at the “bottom” of the social heap get “visited” with nearly all the consequences for our non-functional society.
That only plays out in the courts. I understand that. But there is something more here. Because the courts are supposed to be the place where that gets set right. Where the balance is restored. Where the little guy is just as big under the eyes of the law as the big guy.
That has disappeared (or was never there). But it’s false adversiting for us to continue to say we provide that, if we don’t.
I have been known to say just get rid of the entire Hennepin County Government Center, we’ll save a lot of money. And keeping it there, just to give government workers continued salaries and pensions aint doin’ it for the man in the street.
The equal protection clause was supposed to give us a tool to deal with these issues. But it gets largely ignored, or trampled by criteria that the public never intended when they adopted the Fourteenth Amendment (and the Minnesota Constitution).
When I point out glaring differences in the way public people are treated v. private people, I get mostly ignored, sometimes jeered at. It’s appalling, really. One example is when my 9-month pregnant client was not allowed to take a bathroom break (she finally collapsed just outside the courtroom the last of trial) but when the court reporter needed a break, gosh that was important!
I don’t know how we got here. I’m sure some is human nature, that government workers have a kinship and all that. But the point of being professionals is that we are charged with overcoming human nature and doing what is right not what is comfortable or convenient.
I don’t have a solution at my fingertips for this, but there are hopefully others studying what is not working (why abolish all the writs if the rules of civil procedure don’t get at the substance of what the writs were created for; the original goal of making it easier for people to come to the court are gone – the law is so complex, and lawyers like me can’t even file documents, so it doesn’t matter much what the rules say).
39 EXHIBIT 7 16 08 phone call tr (And the more private people try to protect themselves, or the integrity of the evidence, the more they subject themselves to accusations and risk.)
45 EXHIBIT email from Magistrate Judge Keyes 5 09 (So, continuing with the insanity, when I went to look for this email, the colored bar at the top was missing at first, I clicked on the link below, then the colored bar was back, but not the email; still missing).
40 EXHIBIT CBS counsel email to Clark (Still missing from email archives.)
I observed during the Stepnes litigation how opposing counsel gained an advantage from their review of the hard-drives. This included a list of names that Sara Lathrop asked Deb Everson about at her deposition which she only could have gotten from the hard-drives. And, at the deposition of Michelle Gross, Leita Walker posed questions that strayed into the hard-drives area, even though Magistrate Judge Keyes had ordered CBS not to do that.
3) when in a case does the court stop looking at advancements in the law? If a case was decided after briefing, but before the decision, it seems a given it should be considered. When it is too late? I have observed over the past 5 years or so how the timing of the release of court decisions can impact the cases in the system. I have observed seminal supreme court opinions coming up just before, or just after a certain point in the litigation, and I have seen it benefit some (and not my clients). I have seen the power of the dissent to hold up an opinion so it cannot be released. I don’t know who is wielding that power, because I don’t know what is happening behind the scenes. Law Clerks, judges, court clerks? And after the magic one-year cutoff, the party seeking to get new attention to their case must prove fraud, one of the hardest things to prove in our system (11 elements). 4) the value of the Burlington Northern case is an indicator about the amount of money at issue in the way my clients have been treated. (“A man with a briefcase can steal more money than any man with a gun.” Don Henley.)
August 2008 email to Poser at CBS legal (When I looked for this email, again there was no link available a the bottom, and no colored bar at the time of the inbox. When I went to click on it the first time, from the thumb drive, I swore it was not there. Then when I went again to look it was. So…the world really is watching!).
The more the attorney is adept at technology and uses it to her benefit, the more the interlopers can gain an advantage from it.
Sullivan (Law firms this Levine Sullivan can practice anywhere in the country without much fear that local ethics authorities will catch up with them while they are in the state, liberally granted probably without a judge ever seeing it. Stepnes gave the court the opportunity to void the pro hac vice, but it did not really consider it even though the local rules supposedly hold the visiting attorney to a standard.
Scheduling order: a) are for the convenience of the court; b) cluster due dates around certain times of month making solos targets during those times; c) encourage defense to meet deadlines (like you have to file your summary judgment by this date, it gets on their calendar, then they do it), d) require parties to spend money on things that may never occur (like experts for trial, when they were not necessary for summary judgment), e) tip foes off as to when solo will be working on something (plaintiff summary judgment response due in x days); f) are by their very nature arbitrary, but you have to show good cause to go outside the dates; g) generally, defense attorneys can play games, providing but not really providing discovery, but when move to compel, very tough these days to get a date certain for defense to provide data or sit for a deposition (flip all this in the criminal, can’t get date certain for proscutor to produce evidence). But when defense moves they seem to get orders like you have 10 days to do x.
Requiring attorneys to meet and confer then sign off on same documents means you are likely to get a word doc with some kind of bad technical stuff in it and have it infect your computer.
And the court computer with proposed orders.
All so some clerk did not have to type two extra lines?
Because of the pall of potential future criminal charges, government prevented Stepnes from fulfilling a promise, leaving him vulnerable to being held accountable for that.
That contestant is a good example how you can manipulate a witness’ version of reality by controlling the inforamtion they are given. By the time I would have gotten him in a deposition (he being a former law enforcement officer and all) he would likely have been stepped on. I got him off guard and he told a quite different story, drawing from his law enforcement background in a way that held the other officers accountable.
There is all kinds of financial data in computers. And in court computers. And once your foes are in that data, it is a losing proposition to try to keep it all straight. There comes a point where locating all the errors/discrepancies/missing data, and taking time to correct them is a full time job. And that prevents you from doing what you are supposed to be doing.
Cha Bowman pro hac vice Here, Borger attests re Jeannette Bead, but Chad Bowman attests at the bottom.
Ethics rules can be created to force attorneys to keep things in writing so that computer thieves can go in and hack it.
Pulblic police report 1) Private people (misnomer) have all their personal information spewed around in public. Public people (misnomer) have a lot of privacy for their data. 2) The police reports are not confidential; they can be accessed from desks all over town. 3) Databases like CAPRS have been created to facilitate corruption. This is true (unfortunately) of most police hardware and software. Most of the companies that supply such as owned or controlled by former police officers. So they actually build the corruption of the data into the system, and they teach police how to do it. Several examples of this: a) Farkarlun GPS. Took a while, but we eventually figured out that the system was able to be put on “hold” by the driver of the squad car making the car appear to be stationary when it could be moving. All you have to do it drive by the same spot you parked in, then click the button as you drive by and you can cover up anything. Even rape. b) Shotspotter technology when used by police can be sued to show timing of shots. But when defense wants to use that same technology for the same reason, suddenly you have to go through all these channels (worse being have to go through the prosecutors) they call each other and figure out what data to take out (it’s just ones and zeros) and then they print it out and give it to you. In a case like Philander Jenkins, where timing was everything, the defense could have benefitted from being able to show the shots were 20 minutes before the State said they were.
I also watched as the integrity of the data, and the integrity of the officers called to testify about the data, changed when McManus was or wasn’t chief. Nuff said about that.
Even when I could get down to the line item, unless there is a non-changeable line item audit, it’s not of much use. Or that is, I made use of certain data until people figured out how I was using the data, then they began to manipulate it. A good example of this is the line item for property inventory at the MPD property room. It wasn’t great data, but it was a bit. And even though it only showed as of the last entry made (presumably wiping out the prior entries), certain cross examination was possible from it. When someone finally realized what I was doing, I could no longer rely on that one line of data available.
A somewhat similar thing happened with the Case Audit Reports. First, I was lied to for many years, by many many people, that once the individual supplement was filed, it could not be changed. I knew I was being lied to, and it wasted a lot of time. But even knowing that someone with the proper technical permission could go in there (well, that leaves out the hackers, I guess), the data was helpful for a while. Things that had never been illuminated before, like police reports being filed 5 days after an incident (when officers had routinely been saying on the witness stand that they always file them at the end of their shift), or things like the report being filed from a computer across town from where the filing officer said he was, were possible.
Sadly, once these things began to emerge, the data was no longer reliable. It seemed that when I came onto a case, zeros and ones started to change around tonw.
In critical incident cases, I had suspected this from the start. Perhaps more litigation was expected from those, and with the high potential jury verdicts, someone though it was worth it always to step on that data.
There are so many examples of this, I hardly know where to start or stop. The Case Audit Report cracked the Dontay St. James case, because it showed the stenographer had opened the computer file to input the supplement long before filing it, but I knew it takes only about 6 minutes to type a page. That opened up a whole new area of inquiry, who was in the room, what were they doing there, why weren’t their words written down verbatim?
I don’t know the solution to this, because of my limited understanding of hacking. Hopefully there are others who have some technological solutions that can help us figure out how to make reforms in the justice system (not just the criminal justice system, as it turns out, although putting people in prison for many years when you know they are innocent, that’s got to be up there among the worst of the worst) but also the civil litigation system.
I can’t do it alone.
I nearly killed myself trying.
Neutral Magistrates would need technology training.
Hey, everyone. Thanks for the support. I’m rolling now.
Signed authorization by Jerry Moore for Welsl Fargo
Plaintiff’s CORRECTED memo of law and Att A
Plaintiff’s Memo of Law In Support of Motion to Strike Pleading of Society
Pro Society Response to Plaintiff’s Motion
Plaintiff Exhibits 1 through 4
Moore v Hoff Special Verdict Form
moore ltr. from Phoenix attorneypdf
Moore response to media request for Amicus brief
1 10 letter re second supboena to Wells Fargo for Moore records
Melony Michaels lawsuit against Jerry
Letter responding to Society Response
Letter from WF confirming withdrew subpoena
Hoff Response to Plaintiff Opposition to Post-Trial Motions
Jerry Moore Closing Letter 6 22 09
Hoff motion for stay pursuant to Rule 58
Hoff email to Clark re settlement go to Afghanistan
Amici’s Response to Motion to Strike Amicus Brief
Appellant’s Brief and Appendix
Case filing and judge assignment
Final as SERVED the REAL FINAL
Plaintiffs witness list AMENDED final
TRO Submissions McCandless 02 09 09
Third supboena revised as requested
Porter Order on transcript Ordering
Plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of claims
Plaintiff Written Closing Argument and Appendices
Plaintiff supplemental memorandum signed
Pdf of letter to Schooler from Clark
Memo re administrative remedies
Letter to Judge Porter with SAC re questions about process Sept 09
Letter to Judge Porter with SAC
JACC December 10 2008 minutes and Vote Tally for motion to take nominations for Chiar
Draft employment agreement of Jerry Moore
Clark Supplemental Aff signed with exhibits
complaint FINAL as served on 1 28 09
1 15 09 to Ackerberg from Myers
1 21 10 to Court from Plaintiffs
245873_Ltr to Clark w_20090213165721
Articles_of_Incorporation_JACC
Browne affidavit and attachments
Here are some accommodation requests I made to the state and fedearl courts (and sundry other docs):
Octdober 18 12 request for accommodatoin
Request for accommodation only for Federal
Request for accommodation only for State
Response to Sletter letter responding to my Oct 18 request
To Clark Sletten December 2012
One of the clients I talked about a few posts ago, who has a disability, was summoned by the Chief Judge and asked questions with two law enforcement in the room, but not his attorney. An injunction was entered (without a case number), and the following email is about that. Following it are the attachments.
Email sent by me (jill@jillclarkllc.com), to peter.cahill@courts.state.mn.us, copy to Patti.Martin@courts.state.mn.us; Paul Godfread (paul@godfreadlaw.com); julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; Megan Goodmundson (goodponyz@yahoo.com); Moore, James A. (James.Moore@minneapolismn.gov); djames@nilanjohnson.com; kdecker@briggs.com, 10/22/12, 1:32 PM:
Judge Cahill, this is being directed to you so that I am sure that I am not violating your order (although I have removed that un-numbered case to federal court too and do not waive that).
Could you please approve this and forward it to Judge Bush (his order says this is due today and that is attached).Please let Judge Bush know my intention is to pursue my case(s) in federal court. I have perfected the removal of my cases from state court to federal court.
Peter Rickmyer
Jill Clark, Esq.
Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone: 763/417-9102
Fax: 763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.com
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.
Notice of Filing notice of removalP
Here’s the “standing order” I received email from matti.adam@courts.state.mn.us, Mon 10/22/2012 2:31 PM
Matti Adam
Law Clerk to Chief Judge Peter A. Cahill
C-713, 300 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Phone: 612-596-8732
Fax: 612-596-9144
When I first began to represent this client, I had to quickly file a motion to disqualify this judge.
I ended up, a lot of the time, printing off the register of actions from MnCIS (the state-run computer system for the courts), because it would change, it would be hard, otherwise, to prove what it had once said. Here are some dockets from that client’s case:
This client ended up going through a pretty strange process, the order to show cause issued by Judge Blaeser, was one day before a hearing in which he was being accused by the Hearings and Release Unit of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, of violating his parole by violating Judge Blaeser’s order.
Following are some of the pleadings I filed in an effort to help him (and some state-generated documents), which I pro bono.
Appeal denial by Peterson April 2011
Email to from Jeff Peterson April 2011
June 6 2011 conditions of release
Here’s an email string of interest, because it attached my client’s motion (drafted by me, and the product of evidence in several cases in which I represented clients) to recuse the entire Hennepin County bench. I sent it (jill@jillclarkllc.com), copy to julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; hoffjohnw@gmail.com; Megan Goodmundson <goodponyz@yahoo.com>; Schade, Margaret <MSchade@Briggs.com>; Schooler, David <DSchooler@Briggs.com>; David A. James <djames@nilanjohnson.com>, 1/3/12 at 1:11 PM. I attached the motion here, before the string starts (note that parts of this string is a continued discussion about whether a guy purporting to be on active service should get a stay of the litigation): Scan of 1 3 12 Amended Motions by Plaintiff
Attached is a motion that Plaintiff just e-filed (I clicked courtesy copies to Chief Judge Swenson and Patricia Martin for Judge Bush).
Because I don’t know exactly when those transmittals will occur, I am erring on the side of copying everyone in this string now.Chief Judge Swenson, the first (and only the first) motion is filed before your Honorable Court. Plaintiff has deep respect for Your Honor and for your Court, but due to recent occurrences, Plaintiff believes he has no choice but to bring a motion to recuse the entire Hennepin County bench.
Plaintiff would appreciate a hearing date and time with Your Honor the Chief Judge, and does seek to have that first motion heard before any other motions in this case.
Jill Clark, Esq.
Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone: 763/417-9102
Fax: 763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.com
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.From: David A. James [mailto:djames@nilanjohnson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:53 AM
To: Jill Clark; Schooler, David; Martin, Patti; Schade, Margaret
Cc: julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; hoffjohnw@gmail.com; Megan Goodmundson
Subject: RE: Rickmyer v. BrowneMs. Martin,
I understand that the Court is permitting counsel to submit comments via e-mail to Judge Bush regarding the Court’s recent stay of the matter against Defendant John Hoff. I also understand that Plaintiff Peter Rickmyer’s counsel has asked the Court to stay all proceedings as a result of this Order. To the extent that the Court seeks, or is willing to consider, input from Defendants Jordan Area Community Council, Robert Hodson, Ann McCandless, Michael (“Kip”) Browne, John George Hubbard, II and John Haddy (the “Council Defendants”) in Case No. 27-CV-10-3378, the Council Defendants believe that it is appropriate for the Court to resolve Plaintiff Peter Rickmyer’s Motion to Vacate (“Motion”) as it relates to them, as presently scheduled for Monday, January 9, 2012 at 1:30pm. First, the Council Defendants have submitted an Opposition Memorandum (and supporting Affidavit), which is not premised on Mr. Hoff’s presence in this matter. That is, whether Mr. Hoff has been properly served has no bearing on the Motion as it relates to the Council Defendants.
Second, prior to Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, the Council Defendants understood that this matter had concluded, as the dispositive Order was issued approximately one-and-a-half years ago and Plaintiff elected not to appeal. The Council Defendants respectfully request that the Court address the Motion to Vacate as it pertains to them so that they have the benefit of knowing whether this matter has indeed concluded fully and finally.
Finally, the Council Defendants note that Plaintiff has asserted that he would be prejudiced by allowing discovery against some Defendants during Mr. Hoff’s absence. Should the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, this issue may become ripe for consideration. However, presently there is no discovery occurring in this matter to my knowledge, and no discovery will occur if the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, as the Council Defendants respectfully assert that it should. Thus, the Council Defendants believe that Plaintiff has not offered any reason why this Court should not resolve Plaintiff’s Motion on January 9 as it pertains to the Council Defendants.
Thank you to you and the Court for your consideration of this e-mail.
DAVID A. JAMES
Attorney
612.305.7573
djames@nilanjohnson.comFrom: Jill Clark [mailto:jill@jillclarkllc.com]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 12:52 PM
To: Schooler, David; Martin, Patti; Schade, Margaret
Cc: julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; hoffjohnw@gmail.com; Megan Goodmundson; David A. James
Subject: RE: Rickmyer v. BrowneI do not adopt any of Defendant’s words of assertions of what Mr. Rickmyer has stated.
Mr. Hoff is a lawyer, yet refuses to cite the real law that controls whether he is entitled to a leave.
I would suggest that instead of writing his letters and emails, my esteemed colleague counsel for Mr. Brown perform some legal research with regard to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. There is no evidence to suggest that it applies to Mr. Hoff.We made a formal motion, scheduled for hearing, that the Court order that John Hoff be prohibited from further ex parte communications with the court. Instead, Mr. Hoff’s ex parte communication was acted upon before that motion could receive judicial attention, and Hoff received relief. My client has a right to raise these issues in his case.
Thanks everyone, and have a good New Year.
Jill Clark, Esq.
Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone: 763/417-9102
Fax: 763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.com
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.From: Schooler, David [mailto:DSchooler@Briggs.com]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 12:38 PM
To: Jill Clark; Martin, Patti; Schade, Margaret
Cc: julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; hoffjohnw@gmail.com; Megan Goodmundson; djames@nilanjohnson.com
Subject: RE: Rickmyer v. BrowneMs. Martin, I see that you will forward responses to Ms. Clark’s emails to Judge Bush. Briggs and Morgan and Mr. Browne both recognize allegations suggesting judicial misconduct are taken seriously by the court. However, the suggestions in this email are without any merit.
Mr. Rickmyer has two objections: 1) Rickmyer objects to the court learning that Mr. Hoff is out of the country on active duty; and, 2) Mr. Rickmyer objects to the court staying the claims against Mr.Hoff. Mr. Rickmyer’s counsel suggests the court has learned of this information through improper means and issued relief without proper authority. Neither of these allegations enjoys support in fact or law. It is undisputed that Mr. Rickmyer is actively deployed. Mr. Hoff’s deployment is common knowledge to most every party in this lawsuit including Mr. Rickmyer and most of the attorneys including Ms. Clark. Briggs and Morgan has referenced this information in pleadings and letters to the court. There is nothing improper about advising the court that a defendant is an active serviceman. In fact, Mr. Rickmyer and his counsel were obligated to notify the court of Mr. Hoff’s status as part of federal pleading requirements under the Service Members Civil Relief Act. These requirements were not followed. It is disingenuous to ignore federal law when filing a lawsuit and then complain when the court learns of the situation by other proper channels. Furthermore, the contention that the court acted without authority ignores the Service Members Civil Relief Act. That federal legislation explicitly authorizes this court to act sua sponte to stay litigation against a serviceman under these circumstances. No motion was required by the court.
Mr. Brown respectfully requests that his January 9, 2012 motion proceed in this court without any further delay. Thank you for your consideration.
David A. Schooler
MSBA Certified Civil Trial SpecialistBriggs and Morgan, P.A.
Direct 612.977.8797 Cell 651.253.9951
Fax 612.977.8650
dschooler@briggs.com
2200 IDS Center | 80 South 8th Street | Minneapolis, MN 55402
http://www.briggs.com/dschooler/From: Jill Clark [mailto:jill@jillclarkllc.com]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 6:57 AM
To: Martin, Patti; Schade, Margaret
Cc: julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; hoffjohnw@gmail.com; Megan Goodmundson; djames@nilanjohnson.com; Schooler, David
Subject: RE: Rickmyer v. BrowneThank you.
Plaintiff Rickmyer is also hereby requesting disclosure of every comment, email, telephone call, or other writing or verbal communication between Judges Blaeser and Bush
about the 10-case and/or the 11-case, or about Peter Rickmyer, or about his attorney, Jill Clark.We believe that this request is in keeping with State v. Dorsey, but also, to the extent necessary, seek an expansion or modification of the law.
That is, it is clear the Court has an ethical duty to make the disclosures. Plaintiff asserts that the process, to be effective, must also include the ability of parties to make a request for the disclosures.We also seek an explanation for why Judge Bush took action based on an ex parte letter from John Hoff – given that no one (not Hoff, and not any judicial officer) has disclosed that letter to the parties. And, Plaintiff had filed a motion specifically requesting that Judge Bush not be tainted by looking at that letter. Why is John Hoff allowed to write ex parte to the Court(s) and obtain relief – rather than being ordered to serve all parties with his communications?
Thank you,
Jill Clark, Esq.
Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone: 763/417-9102
Fax: 763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.com
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.From: Martin, Patti [mailto:Patricia.Martin@courts.state.mn.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:03 PM
To: Jill Clark; Schade, Margaret
Cc: julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; hoffjohnw@gmail.com; Megan Goodmundson; djames@nilanjohnson.com; Schooler, David
Subject: RE: Rickmyer v. BrowneI’ll bring this to Judge Bush’s attention and any responses.
From: Jill Clark [mailto:jill@jillclarkllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 1:03 PM
To: Schade, Margaret; Martin, Patti
Cc: julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; hoffjohnw@gmail.com; Megan Goodmundson; djames@nilanjohnson.com; Schooler, David
Subject: RE: Rickmyer v. BrowneMy client did not have any idea that Judge Bush was going to issue an order based on the letter of David Schooler.
I had asked if the Judge wanted to set a briefing schedule on this issue, and do not recall a response.
My client disagrees with the legal framework, and wants to litigate the issue. May my client please put in a response before the Court rules?
At this time we are seeking vacatur of the order staying proceedings against John Hoff, until such time as my client is allowed to address the court on the issue.
Further, my client objects to “litigation by letter,” for this very reason. There is no hearing date, there is no motion, no briefing schedule, and then if the other party does not respond in a matter of days – a ruling.Further, my client is prejudiced by requiring that discovery in this type of case proceed against some of the defendants, when we cannot obtain discovery from Mr. Hoff. If the matter is to be stayed, we prefer staying the entire matter until Mr. Hoff is available for litigation.
My client respectfully requests that the order be voided by Judge Bush until such time as we may brief the issue.
I have removed Ms. Kemp, as the proceedings against her client is in a different court.
Jill Clark, Esq.
Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone: 763/417-9102
Fax: 763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.com
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.From: Schade, Margaret [mailto:MSchade@Briggs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 4:31 PM
To: Patti.Martin@courts.state.mn.us
Cc: Jill Clark; julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; Kelly.Kemp@ag.state.mn.us; hoffjohnw@gmail.com; Megan Goodmundson; djames@nilanjohnson.com; Schooler, David
Subject: Rickmyer v. BrownePlease see the attached letter with exhibits.
Margaret J. Schade
Legal Administrative Assistant to
David A. Schooler, Steven W. Wilson,
and Jason M. HedicanBriggs and Morgan, P.A.
Direct 612.977.8667
Fax 612.977.8650
mschade@briggs.com2200 IDS Center | 80 South Eighth Street | Minneapolis, MN 55402
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail
communication and any attached documentation may be privileged,
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and is
intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s). It
is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized
person. The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal by
an unintended recipient of this communication is strictly
prohibited without our express approval in writing or by e-mail.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete
it from your system without copying it and notify the above sender
so that our e-mail address may be corrected. Receipt by anyone other
than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client
or work-product privilege.
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. (http://www.messagelabs.com)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. (http://www.messagelabs.com)
________________________________________________________________________CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail
communication and any attached documentation may be privileged,
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and is
intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s). It
is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized
person. The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal by
an unintended recipient of this communication is strictly
prohibited without our express approval in writing or by e-mail.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete
it from your system without copying it and notify the above sender
so that our e-mail address may be corrected. Receipt by anyone other
than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client
or work-product privilege.
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. (http://www.messagelabs.com)
________________________________________________________________________PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE – This message and any attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized to receive for the recipient, you are notified that dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE – Any advice contained in this communication and any related attachment(s) is not intended to be used, and it cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding tax related penalties or to support the promotion or marketing of any matter. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations.)
My client also filed some motions regarding past activity of the claimed serviceman, here is the email cover to it, and following are the document transmitted, by jill@jillclarkllc.com, copy to ‘Schooler, David’ <DSchooler@Briggs.com>; Megan Goodmundson <goodponyz@yahoo.com>; Martin, Patti <Patricia.Martin@courts.state.mn.us>; Paul Godfread <paul@godfreadlaw.com> and djames@nilanjohnson.com, sent 1/9/12, 1:03 PM.
Attached as a courtesy are copies of Plaintiff’s motion in the 11-case to vacate the order staying the proceedings as to Hoff.
Courtesy copy to Mr. James.
I am going to sign my aff when filing with the court but wanted to get you all copies asap.
Jill Clark, Esq.
Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone: 763/417-9102Fax: 763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.comThis 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.
Cover lettermotion to vacate 1 9 12Multiple motions amended 1 9 12
Memoranda, affidavit and large exhibits were transmitted by several emails, see one from jill@jillclarkllc.com, copy to julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; hoffjohnw@gmail.com; Megan Goodmundson <goodponyz@yahoo.com>; Schade, Margaret <MSchade@Briggs.com>; David A. James <djames@nilanjohnson.com>; Diliberto, Gail <Gail.Diliberto@courts.state.mn.us>; Eidsness, Kyle <Kyle.Eidsness@courts.state.mn.us>; Paul Godfread <paul@godfreadlaw.com>; Peggy Katch <peggy@jillclarkllc.com> and Swenson, James (Judge) <James.Swenson@courts.state.mn.us>; ‘Schooler, David’ <DSchooler@Briggs.com>; Martin, Patti <Patricia.Martin@courts.state.mn.us>, 1/6/12, 7:39 AM.
Attached are pdf’s of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in support of motion to recuse the Hennepin County Bench, as well as 1/5/12 Clark Aff. and a list of the “reading” copies that are being provided to Chief Judge Swenson’s chambers. (Those that are not already in the 10-case or 11-case are public court filings, but for your convenience they are being provided to counsel and unrepresented parties via email. You may print them or store them, but we will not be mailing hard copies.)
Plaintiff seeks a hearing on his motion to recuse the bench, prior to any hearing or rulings by the Honorable Philip D. Bush.
Jill Clark, Esq.
Jill Clark, LLC
Telephone: 763/417-9102Fax: 763/417-9112
jill@jillclarkllc.com
Here are the docs:
Memorandum supporting motion to remove Bench
List of Reading Copies for Chief Judge Swenson
Chester Group Cover letter and petition
Chester House writ All affidavits in support of petition
The Chief Judge issued an order denying the motion, then later this memorandum explaining the decision.
Via email (jill@jillclarkllc.com) to the then-Chief Judge of Hennepin County Court (james.swenson@courts.state.mn.us), I transmitted the attached letter, copy to Karasov, Fred (Judge) <Fred.Karasov@courts.state.mn.us>; Sherman, Darcy <Darcy.Sherman@courts.state.mn.us>; Rygh, Kathy A. <Kathy.Rygh@minneapolismn.gov>; Kelly, Elizabeth A. <Elizabeth.Kelly@minneapolismn.gov>; Michelle.Hatcher@co.hennepin.mn.us; james.mccreasy@co.hennepin.mn.us; Willms, Angela <Angela.Willms@courts.state.mn.us>; michael.freeman@co.hennepin.mn.us; Leaf, Kelley <Kelley.Leaf@courts.state.mn.us>; Peggy Katch <peggy@jillclarkllc.com>, at Fri 3/30/2012 10:29 AM
Here’s the letter: Letter to Chief Judge Swenson
Here’s his response: Swenson reply
This was a curious case, right from the start. I got a phone call from someone identifying himself as a Hennepin County Sheriff’s deputy, said he had picked up an order from a basket at the Juvenile Justice Center on 6th Street in Minneapolis and was asked to serve it on my client, the father of the two children at issue. When I finally got a copy of the order, it was a purported “show cause” order, but it did not cite any authority for such a hearing. Order to show Cause
I scoured the Junvenile Protection Rules, and could not find any authority there. Juv_Prot_Rls_Eff_ 8-1-09
I then wrote a letter to the Judge that appears to have signed it, and that’s attached here. Letter to Judge Lefler with attachments
So here’s an interesting one. Those in active service for the military, can obtain ex parte stays for their entire service leave. I was working hard to get accommodated, and it was taking all my effort. How nice it would have been to be able to say, hey, I need three months off, and have it work.
This email string is from the attorney for a guy who claimed he was on active duty for the military, someone got an affidavit, and this is his attorney emailing it to the judge’s clerk. Apparently it’s that easy for some people.
The top email was sent from Judge Bush’s clerk, Patti.martin@courts.state.mn.us, to me paul@godfreadlaw.com, Thu 6/28/2012 12:12 PM, copy to jill@jillclarkllc.com, dsschooler@briggs.com, goodponyz@yahoo.com (that’s Megan Goodmundson to my knowledge), and the claimed serviceman, John Hoff, at johnhoffw@gmail.com
Confirmed received. I will bring to Judge Bush’s attention and get back to you. Thanks. Patti.
________________________________________
From: Paul Godfread [paul@godfreadlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:39 AM
To: Martin, Patti
Cc: Jill Clark; David Schooler; julie.bowman@co.hennepin.mn.us; Jordan Neighbor; John Hoff
Subject: Letter re: Stephenson aka Rickmyer v. Fabian et al. 27-cv-11-11012
Dear Ms. Martin,Please find attached a copy of letter to Judge Bush regarding Mr. Hoff’s military status relating to case number 27-cv-11-11012. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul Godfread
GODFREAD LAW FIRM, PC
100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Minneapolis, MN 55402phone: 1.612.284.7325
fax: 1.612.465.3609
skype: paulgodfreadThis communication is for the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Here’s the affidavit submitted followed by another letter requesting relief:
Prosecutorial Misconduct in America 