Jill Clark for Justice

Check out some blogs on Jill Clark continues March 16, 2013

Those of you accessing this site can check out what I have been writing on my blog Jill Clark continues, at jillclarkcontinues.wordpress.com

February 9, 2013

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.

Thanks for the support January 10, 2013

Hey, everyone. Thanks for the support. I’m rolling now.

January 10, 2013

Recommendations of the Special Prosecutor:

1. A no fault system for harm to parties/clients in the justice system.

Just as marriage were once fraught with each spouse attempting to prove some type of misconduct by the other, just as those involved in car accidents used to expend precious resources trying to show how the accidents had happened and who was at fault, my disciplinary case has shown how many resources we use in attempting to prove fault in ethics and misconduct matters for lawyers and judges.

When spouses had to go after each other, things got crazy, with people hiring private investigators to slink around and try to get audio or pictures of the other one doing wrong. Uh, remind you of anything? (I know that Lucy Wieland (or according to her, her husband) sent a private investigator to a press conference I held in December 2006, to get an audio of me speaking about her.) I attempted to obtain audio of cour hearings, literally for years, and got blocked, presumably because the people who had the authority to make the decision, were influenced by their own fear that if the audio got into my possession, that they would get in trouble.

Many of the “ethics” issues aren’t really ethics issues. They are attempts at preventing harm. Once the harm has occurred, punishing the person who someone believes violated a rule, can cause more harm. And, more to the point, it can distract those of us in the system who should be spending our time focusing on the customer of the courts – the clients.

A lof more could be said on this point; there is a lot more to figure out about how it would implement. But the recommendation is sound; it worked in the marriage and car accident arenas, and it could work for us.

2. Amnesty for all wrongdoers.

This is a big one, folks. I think that sometimes when people think about me, they place their own values onto me, assuming I think the same way about the world as they do. They see me through their own eyes. I am not a vindictive person. Sure, I get angry now and then and spew a bit. But I really am not driven by revenge. I kind of don’t even get it. I’m not saying I am better than those of you who spent (inordinate amount of) time thinking of ways to “get” someone who you think slighted you. I’m just saying I’m different. The up side of my way of thinking is that once done, it’s done. And if we can heal it, we can move past it.

I don’t have any desire to see any judges in jail, and I don’t even have any desire to see police officers in jail. Unless they have committed a violent act, most people do better with self-improvement (healing themselves from within) than they do with someone scolding them and making them give penance. As I said when I was talking about the Catholic church, we had to go throug this phase. Judges had to feel what it is like when you are the accused; when you are the one with the fear that your career could be over, that you could have your freedom taken away from you. It’s all been a great learning experience. Time to move on.

3. That said, we do need to expose what happened.

The fact that I am willing to move on doesn’t mean we are entirely done. We have a public to serve. And although some of you might be the unfortuante ones who are the “examples,” we do need to expose the evidence so that the public knows what is going on “back stage” in the courts.

The public can only help us fashion reform, if they first know what has happened.

I won’t hear anyone grouse about their reputations being tarnished by this process. After the humiliation I went through this past year, really, yours will be trivial. I paid the biggest price, and you all know it.

4. Establish a fund for those harmed.

People were harmed in the past decade. And people were harmed in the process. Rather than spending years litigation about fault, and because the defendants (from my estimation) are all or nearly all state employees (and the state has a duty to defend them, but also to pay annuities for those harmed by negligence), establish a fund much as that the State funded following the bridge collapse.

Although I would never compare our situation to that tragedy, there is allure in the notion that we could “cut to the chase,” acknowledge that people were harmed by accident (or, more precisely, because that was the way it had always been done) and that there should be compensation.

Minimal time could be spent assessing damages (and there are plenty of good mediators and special masters who could serve in that function), and we could spend our energy figuring out what to change so that it does not happen again.

I guess I need to realize that there may be some of you who think you can still go on the way you have been. I really don’t think that’s true. Denial is not a river in Egypt, and it attacks us all at times. If you are caught up in it, if you are still fighting because you think you can reclaim “the way things used to be,” I caution you.

First, consciousness, once raised, can never be “un”-raised. That’s something we learned in the 60′s.

Second, your public won’t allow it. Cetain insiders have been telling members of the public, for many, many years, essentially, that if they questioned judges, they were crazy or worse. Turns out, many of them were right, their suspicions justified, their concern warranted. So you owe it to them to consider that they had a point. And that they should be listened to better in the future.

Third, I think you’ll find, if you can slow down enough from the evidence creating and evidence destroying, that you have left a trail as wide as the Grand Canyon. Not to mention that the ways you can get caught have increased tenfold.

[this is not the same text I posted publicly last evening.]

What made me so irritating to system insiders, for many years, was my uncanny ability to first sense of …

Here’s more January 10, 2013

Here’s what many of you have been waiting for. Attached is a copy of “pre-filing” qui tam disclosures. I worked diligently for this past year to follow all of the strictures of the qui tam statutes, but they are so onerous, and those who are able to interfere with computers seem to be able to get them no matter how much confidentiality I attempt to attempt.

I did provide pre-filing disclosures to the “government” in mid November, and it is my clients’ position that we are still entitled to sue on these issues, whether under that statute (the law does not demand the impossible), or under another.

I have thought long and hard about the public disclosure of these documents. I have a well-formed analysis as to why I am authorized to do this. And those of you thinking of trying to use one of the “three c’s” on me (you know, you criticize government, they make you crazy, criminal, or conspiracy nut), you should keep in mind what the exhibits would be at that trial, and what the jury will think of you for trying to slam someone who is trying to make things right.

I have taken as much care as I possibly could to maintain confidentiality where appropriate (even in these disclosures), and I have taken great care with the wording of each allegation, demarking it as a rumor if it were so.

I worked literally months on this, drawing from my own knowledge, from closed files, from emails provided by the Attorney General’s Office, and from other documents.

Attached is the memorandum to government (this one to the AG).

Attached here are the emails quoted from in the above memo.

Exciting news January 10, 2013

I am entitled to a name clearing hearing.

Public employees whose names are besmirched are entitled to such a hearing. Equal protection demands that I be as well.

Instead of submitting written appraisals of whether lawyer should be reinstated to the director, lawyers, judges, clients, members of the public should be permitted to appear in person. I am submitting this in a more-than-state-wide publication (this blog). Anyone responding to this summons and soliciation, will be absolutely immune, their comments absolutely privileged, and they will be invited to present evidence.

I’ve re-crafted the language from the Minnesota Rules of Professional Responsiblity, below, to fit this situation. This recrafting of a state statute was done in State v. Crawley; I see no reason why it should not be done here.

(1) The Director shall publish an announcement of the petition for reinstatement in a publication of general statewide circulation to attorneys soliciting comments regarding the appropriateness of the petitioner’s reinstatement. Any comments made in response to such a solicitation shall be absolutely privileged and may not serve as a basis for liability in any civil lawsuit brought against the person making the statement.

Prior to any suspension or disbarment, the attorney shall publish an announcement of the petition for reinstatement or in the nature of a petition for reinstatement in a publication of general statewide circulation to attorneys and judges and the public, soliciting comments regarding the appropriateness of the petitioner’s quasi-reinstatement, and the appropriateness of that attorney coming forward with evidence procured over roughly the last decade, in the furtherance of the public good. Any comments made in response to such a solicitation shall be absolutely privileged and may not serve as a basis for liability or sanctions in any civil, criminal or disciplinary proceeding.

I am also inviting you to submit commentary regarding the quasi-reinstatement of Attorney Jill Waite. And feel free to suggest other attorneys who have had their license yanked from them, who are entitled to a similar consideration.

Please appear at the Minnesota Judicial Center, January 14, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.

Substantive due process January 10, 2013

I am urging that it is fundamentally unfair for the justice system to “use” me as a special prosecutor, and to make be bear this obtuse proceeding that has been described as an “ethics” matter. I have observed much bad conduct in the past years with regard to this matter.

As a matter of substantive due process law (under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, with whatever clause parallels that under the Minnesota Constitution), I have
already had to bear up under one trial. Two trials is double jeopdary. My substantive right, plus the misconduct of various state officials, shoudl result in a complete dismissal of the substantive allegtions against me.

Moving with confidence into the 21st Century June 2, 2012

This is not just a campaign for judge.

This is the campaign for Chief Justice, the leader of the Minnesota judicial branch.

A leader is one who “takes the lead or sets an example.”

For over a decade Jill Clark has plunged forward in pursuit of her vision for bringing sunshine into the courts.  She has risked and reaped the ire of those who try to prevent change.  She has presevered.  Jill Clark has been demanding that judges obey the law just like everybody else.  (Read Jill Clark’s blog about judicial misconduct and what we can do about it here.)

“Let’s never forget:  Millions of Americans who play by the rules every day deserve a government and a [court] system that do the same.”  President Obama, 2012 State of the Union Address.

The Chief Justice seat is for a leader who has a vision for the court’s traditional function of seeking truth – in a changing world.

This dynamic site will continue to change and grow (check us out often).

Treat all men alike. Give them the same law. Give them an even chance to live and grow.  Chief Joseph