A little notification thingy hit my email this morning, letting me know Jill Clark had (supposedly) removed 3 or possibly 4 of Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer's cases to federal court. To see Jill Clark's actual document and analyze it for yourself, click here.
For those who need this kind of a review:
Rickmyer is a disgusting Level Three sex offender who had a long and annoying career filing pro se, in forma pauperis legal cases against North Minneapolis residents (in one instance, literally suing the Tupperware lady) until his right to willy-nilly file litigation was taken away and he was declared a Rule 9 frivolous litigant, unable to file anything without a licensed attorney signing off.
Where would Spanky find a lawyer as crazy as he is to file crap on his behalf? Spanky didn't have far to look; notoriously loony lawyer Jill Clark hopped into the fray, more or less just "signing off" on a pile of gibberish filed by Spanky Pete against (among many others) this blogger.
At some point, the Hennepin County District Court issued ANOTHER order about Spanky Pete, saying, in effect, "When we said you couldn't file anything new, we also meant new stuff in OLD cases you're trying to animate and bring back to life, like Ted Bundy messing around with a corpse." (The blogger might be creatively reading much into the intent of the Honorable Court, yet only by metaphor, not by ultimate intention)
But now Spanky's attorney Jll Clark is facing spectacular disciplinary issues and, so she states, health issues. Clark was recently told by the State Supreme Court to "put up or shut up" about her health issues, click here, but in that precious little space of time before she's called on the carpet to answer, Clark has filed this...well, what is it?
...Clark filed some kind of "notice" with the state court about alleged "removal" of 3, possibly 4, Rickmyer cases to federal court.
However, the "notice" alludes to the date of August 10. This is the day Clark "submitted for review" the "big steaming pile of crazy" document which might be characterized as a "mass removal attempt" of MOST (not all) of Jill's cases to federal court, with little regard to niceties like deadlines. The document was "submitted for review" because (similar to her client Spanky Pete) Clark is now in the position of not being allowed to file stuff in federal court pertaining to her disciplinary case without prior approval of the federal court.
I say "3, possibly 4" because the document cites three Spanky Pete court cases by citation number, then also lists "the file in which the Chief Judge recently issued an order (without file #) restricting filing by Rickmyer/counsel."
This morning I used the PACER system to search the federal court system but was unable to turn up anything under "Peter Rickmyer," the name associated with the cases and the supposed removal.
In her filings of late, Clark seems to be screaming into a black void, hearing only her own voice echoing. Is she able to achieve enough self-awareness to realize how CRAZY that voice sounds?
This morning one local lawyer said Spanky Pete's case had a "point zero one" chance of surviving a coming motion hearing for dismissal and any removal to federal court would be "a fraction of that fraction."
However, Clark's recent focus on Spanky Pete may show awareness of what a massive malpractice case could be looming against her if this mangy stray dog of a client turns on her when she loses her license and has nothing more to offer him. This is true of many Clark clients but the ones I see as most likely to ultimately pursue legal malpractice claims are, in this order:
1.) The Yzaguirre children; against the advice of their mother, Terry, who will point out that Johnny Northside would blog about it endlessly.
2.) Spanky Pete; who has a great case for malpractice but deviant personality and (reported of late by a highly credible witness) body odor issues that make him a difficult client for any lawyer, hobbling his chances.
3.) Dan, Dan, the religious cult man (Dan Faith Aschemann) who is fighting over his children (always a great motivator) and possesses a law degree, though he has repeatedly failed the bar exam. However, a malpractice case of this nature could be a "gimme" if simply filed at the right time. Wouldn't Dan's legal career be vindicated by THAT; successfully suing a lawyer?
4.) James Andre Woodward, who is facing serious legal charges that could put him in prison and what happens? His lawyer flakes out on him. If he's in prison, he'd have ALL DAY to file things and ask malpractice lawyers for help. Though a "dark horse" in this race, Woodward shows "eye of the tiger" potential to break to the front of the pack.
5.) Jerry Moore; rated as not very likely, but likely enough to be a theoretical consideration. Somebody with a law license should have told him the "Blogosphere Trial of the Century" against this blogger was a really bad idea but somebody (Jill Clark, cough cought) didn't.
Moore would probably hesitate due to the same issue as the Yzaguirre siblings; what will Johnny Northside write?
Knowing my blogging could be a factor in whether Clark's former clients sue Clark, I hereby make a public vow: ANY FORMER CLARK CLIENT WHO SUES CLARK WILL NOT BE THE RECIPIENT OF HARSH "I TOLD YOU SO" BLOGGING ABOUT THE LAWSUIT. IN THE COURSE OF COVERING THE LAWSUIT I WILL REFRAIN FROM PITHY ONE LINERS, SARCASM, COLORFUL METAPHORS COMPARING YOUR COURT FILINGS TO NECROPHILIA, AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF THIS BLOG IS KNOWN FOR (EMPHASIS) AS PERTAINS TO YOUR LAWSUIT AGAINST JILL CLARK.
(I might still write about your many OTHER issues in the same way as usual, but that's going to happen ANYWAY and we both KNOW that)
All lawyers in Minnesota are required to carry malpractice insurance; this is the situation in most if not all states.
There is no way Clark's discipline case will end well and smoothly, it shows every indication of being a law career bloodbath. The burning question in the horrible end game is "Who will be the recipient of all the money from the malpractice insurance policy?"