Full disclosures demanded from Lorie S. Gildea and Staff

I have spoken with Rita DeMeules, MN Supreme Court Commissioner.  I am aware that she reports directly to Lorie S. Gildea.  I am also aware of documents purporting to be ‘orders’ in In re Clark, that state at the bottom, that Gildea “took no part” in the decision.   How am I to believe that is true?  When the staff report to her?

Full disclosures are demanded, by end of business day Thursday, May 16, 2013, including but not limited to:

1) all involvement of Gildea in In re Clark;

2) a list of all meetings regarding In re Clark that were not held in the courtroom including who was in attendance and what was discussed;

3) a list of all meetings regarding In re Clark that did not involve the full Court and including who was in attendance and what was discussed;

4) why the recusal motion filed by Clark July 2012 was not considered and decided by the full court (from talking to DeMeueles, it sounds like there is some “docket” that motions and other matters must be placed on, and that staff decide what will be placed there, and why – why isn’t the public told that what we file can be sidelined by staff?  And how am I to believe, under those conditions, that staff did not do what Gildea, their supervisor, wanted them to do?)

5) whether the motion to change status of email evidence filed February 2012 was considered and decided by the full Court, and if not – why not.

Look, this is just for starters.  I am going to have MANY MORE questions.

May 14, 2013.  No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

What is Fraud: Part 1?

This series of posts discusses the important topic – what is fraud?

An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.

The above is one sentence from the defintion of fraud from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co., 1990 (emphasis added).  Later posts will cover such topics as manifestations of fraud, actionable fraud, and the badges of fraud.

May 8, 2013.  No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

May 8, 2013.  No derivatives works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

Isn’t Lorie S. Gildea responsible for the administration of the MN Judicial Branch?

I have been pondering how one elected official (here, the Chief Justice), elected to a constitutional office, can create a “council” (here, the Judicial Council) to govern in their stead.  I tried to locate the supposed “authorizing” order on the MN Judicial Branch website, but what I saw was this:

You will have to do better than that!

I also requested a copy of the supposed authorizing order by email this morning.

I sent the email to Carla Heyl (who told me this morning that she is the Manager of the Legal Counsel Division of the State Court Administrator’s Office).

I don’t have a copy of the “order” yet (even the website refers to it as an “administrative” order – what is that?) but I am anxiously awaiting it.  If it is not easy for people in court administration to put their fingers on, we may have a different problem.

I won’t be satisfied with anything less than an original signature on the so-called authorizing order.

Today Carla Heyl told me the Supreme Court has not destroyed any of its documents in favor of digitizing.  So there should be no reason why the original order is not produced for inspection by the Public.

For purposes of this post, my point is that government is subject to constraints.  A new body cannot be created, just because it is convenient.  Or someone’s idea of “efficient.”  And, in particular, I see no reason to permit the Chief Justice to shirk responsibility for administration, merely because a Council now convenes.

Until 2005, the Conference of Chief Judges acted in an advisory capacity.

Really, I think that’s what the Judicial Council probably is – an advisory council.  And it’s fine for administrators to seek guidance.  That’s all good.

But I have a hard time with one elected official shifting the responsibility (which, let’s face it, usually comes to roost when something goes wrong) to a “council.”

Lorie S. Gildea accepted Governor Pawlenty’s appointment to Chief Justice.  At this time, it appears she is responsible for the administration of the judicial branch.  And the Public has a right to hold her accountable.

Who is managing technology at the MN state courts?

I have been asking, trying to research, and otherwise have been trying to figure out what is going on with technology in the MN Courts.

An email referred me to Jeff Shorba.  I emailed him on Friday March 18, 2013 – waiting for a response.

I note that Shorba’s bio available when he was Deputy Court Administrator included overseeing “information technology.”  When Lorie S. Gildea appointed him State Court Administrator, the article said he had managed “information technology/”

Now, his Shorba’s on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website says nothing about information technology.

The State Court Administrator description that I saw, was silent as to who is overseeing “information technology.”

Not only that, but the bio for the current Deputy did not contain any reference to “information technology” either.

SO WHO IS IT?

Is anyone going to step up and take responsibility for the way in which technology has been handled?  The Public has a right to know.

I don’t get this urge to hide from the Public.  It’s something that apparently drives some people; it looks bad.

So I called the MN State Court Administrator’s Office today.  A woman answered the phone – it seemed like she was angry at me.  I don’t understand why so many government clerks are snippy.  Are they too long on the job?  Are they unhappy in their jobs?  I don’t know anything at the point I call and am seeking information.  I do not understand why I get treated so sharply at times.  But leaving that to the side for now, I asked who is managing Information Technology.

“Informal Technology” she asked, like it was some extinct species.  Yes, Information Technology I said.  She gave me the name Brenda Velasquez.  I will try calling her to see what she says she is in charge of.

I also was able to get John Kostouros on the phone while he was in his car, and he did call me back later to ask what documents I wanted.  I let him know, and he offered to mail them, which is the best service I have had in requesting public data – to date.  (I will await their arrival, I guess, before I start celebrating.)

I requested that the 2012-13 Strategic Plan be mailed to me, as well as the contracts with whatever entities digitized court records in the Second and Fourth Judicial Districts.

I await these.

UPDATE:  I have received nothing to date.

Also, I note that altough the Receptionist gave me the name of Brenda Velasquez, the website identifies a Mr. Moore.  Which is it?

Why won’t Minnesota Judges finish their terms? Part 1

In 2008 I filed a Petition with the Minnesota Supreme Court, along with a Voter.  The Petition challenged whether Lorie S. Gildea’s was qualified to run for election to Minnesota Seat #4, and drew the conclusion that she was not.

Jill Clark_20130317_175648 (Part 1 of 2008 Petition)

Jill Clark_20130317_175748 (Part 2 of 2008 Petition)

We also pointed out the statewide concerted effort to prevent elections by judges agreeing (and then acting on that agreement) to resign before the end of their 6-year terms were over, with the understanding that the Governor would appoint a judge to take their place.

We pointed out that judges take an oath, to the public, to serve for 6 years.  Although I did not elaborate the point at that time, I think it was understood, and I’ll say it now:  Judges violate their oath of office when they claim they are going to serve a 6-year term, and then agree behind the scenes to do the opposite – to work in tandem with others to ensure the seat does not go up for election so that the People can select the new judge.

I very pointedly said in 2008 in the Supreme Court chambers, to the substitute Panel, that an agreement to violate the constitution violates the constitution.

I recall vividly discussion with now retired Judge Willis (sitting as substitute Justice), him incredulously asking whether we were suggesting that someone temporaily sit in the Seat #4 (or other seat emptied by resignation or disability) until the next election, and I said yes.  I cannot recall what he said, but his reaction seemed to me to be that that would not be plausible.

Here’s the kicker.

Just this weekend, I reviewed a House Research Department (of the Minnesota Legislature) summary of The Minnesota Judiciary – A Guide for Legislators.  It was published October 2008.  The same year we challenged the ballot.  And before the general election.

That document says, in describing the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary, that retired justices and judges of the court of appeals can be assigned to serve on the Supreme Court temporarily.  See the page with that commentary, below (see lower-left-hand box).

So, not only was is possible, House Research put it in writing.  In 2008.

Why, when I said it, was the reaction incredulity?  It’s clearly possible.  Judge Willis, himself, was sitting in a temporary justice position for that case.  There is no reason that vacancies cannot be staffed with temporaily (to get the work done), still preverving the public’s right to select policy-making judges by election.

There was a lot of discussion during the 2008 oral argument about how the ballots would have to be reprinted if the Petition were granted.  I could not believe this.  The People of the State of Minnesota, denied their right to vote, because the court did not want the Secretary of State to have to pay to reprint the ballots?  I mean, is the court neutral, or not?  Why would the frankly measly amount it would cost to reprint the ballots, trumpt the citizens’ right to vote?  That analysis, in and of itself, showed how far the courts have gone astray.

The courts were to be the watchdog of government.   Instead, the courts got in bed with the executive branch, and became its rubber stamp, became its protector.

What about us?

What about the People?

Who is going to protect us?

The Panel “deliberated” (if you can call is that) for less than an hour, I heard.  The result was, predictably, the People lose, the entrenched system of appointing judges in violation of the constitution – prevailed.

In 2010, we brought the challenge again, in a somewhat different form.  That time, we focused on the Chief Justice position, and how it had not been run for 10 years.

Jill Clark_20130317_180908 (2010 Petition)

I had hopes that that Panel would do the right thing.  I was disappointed when the Decision came out, signed by Justice Page (this, I thought to myself, was contrived so that the one Justice selected by election in the past decade, would have signed the document – I guess I did not think at the time to authenticate the signature), essentially whitewashing decades of unconstitutional conduct, and unconstitutional agreements to violate the constitution.  I mean, if you can’t go to the Court to enforce the constitution – where can you go?

I want to be a bit more clear what I mean when I say “whitewash” the conduct and agreements.  I believe that Decision had the goal of making it ok to do what the state judges and governors had been doing for years:  conspiring to violate the constitution.  So although the Minnesota Supreme Court says it applies the constitution, it did not do it when it came to its own.

Look, it’s not like I hid the ball.  I was forthright when I communicated with the Minnesota Supreme Court.  But, for reasons that are unclear to me, that Court thinks it can blatantly ignore motions, arguments, objections, and other legal filings.  And here’s the thing:  the only reason they got away with it for so many years, is the code of silence in my business.

And here’s the other thing, the thing about the code of silence, the reason there is so much intimidation, threats, subtle communication that you will LOSE YOUR LICENSE IF YOU TALK, it’s this one very powerful thing:  if one person breaks the code of silence it is broken.

I have broken the code of silence.

There is no way to unbreak it.

Stay tuned for Part 2.

Minnesota Courts have a policy or custom of violating court orders: Part 5

Has anyone stopped to consider the damages to Jill Clark, her reputation, her practice, not to mention her clients, for the violation of the seal orders – just in “Ramsey County” digital records (I put that in quotes because my guess is that really, system wide, judges, law clerks, court clerks, have been able to readily access all documents in my disciplinary case and that many have done so).

It’s not like I made a secret of the fact that a lawyer’s state law license is a state property right.  Did anyone look up what that means?  It means you are liable for violation of procedural due process.  And the Record is quite awesome for that claim.

I guess your researchers let you down.

Cause all you did was create a fabulous lawsuit for Jill Clark and others you harmed in the process.  I think you already know I am listed as the class representative for the class of Minnesotans who have or will come before the state courts.  Many, many people have had their rights violated by the destruction of court records, and violation of court orders by the courts.

If there are some who are unwilling to consider early resolution, consider that the damages are accumulating daily – for a statewide class.

Minnesota Courts have a policy or custom of violating court orders: Part 4

As I have described in Parts 1-3, I spent a bit of time at Ramsey County District Court (the main building, on Kellogg, St. Paul), and discovered more than I wanted to know.

I was literally told that I was prohibited from viewing documents in my own cases (where I am attorney of record as well as party), without a court order.  But here is the wierd thing.  When I first sat down at the computer, and began reviewing the electronic docket for file number 1 (the Register of Actions in the state electronic vernacular), the documents opened for me.  It was only when I got about half way down the docket that they began to throw up a pink bar blocking my access.

So here is the question:  why would the records at the top of the docket be viewable, but those at the bottom (after I had been online for about 2-4 minutes) not be viewable?  Surely the Judge did not order that only those documents appearing at the bottom of the docket are “sealed” (see Part 3 re “seal).  So how does one explain this?

I then moved to the second file, second elecronic docket.  And the same thing happened.  At first, all entries were viewable.  Motions, affidavits, memoranda, orders.  Then, after I had been online for about 2-4 minutes, I saw the pink bar and was blockd from pulling up the documents.  Again, I know for a fact (this was my case) that the Judge did not order that only those documents appearing on the bottom half of the electronic docket were sealed.  So what is going on?

I certainly hope that whoever, or whatever “authorized” the destruction of original court orders and this electronic docket and storage system (and I do not concede they had that authority), can explain to me why this is occurring.  This is already a very big problem.  Whoever/whatever set this in motion may have destroyed the order of the system.  If they don’t know why an electronic docket is blocking access to the viewer after 2-4 minutes, my concern is even greater.  Because it shows to me that they did not have the knowledge to make the decision.  And did not do what it took to get the knowledge before making the decision.

That is not leadership.

And it is not administration.

In this case, it is chaos.

Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea – who decided to destroy court orders?

I have not gotten a response yet about who or what decided to destroy original court orders and other court records, and to have them scanned and stored in a digital environment.  (See various posts on this blog on this topic, and my attempt to get answers from Sue Dosal and Jeff Shorba.)  If you are the Chief Justice, don’t you have an obligation to inform your public?

Do you know who or what made the decision?

And who or what selected the company that would do the shredding and scan the records?

And where is the contract?

I want to see it – and I want to see it Monday. No stalling, no run arounds, no games.

Minnesota Courts have a policy or custom of violating court orders: Part 3

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines seal,

As regards sealing of records, means to close by any kind of fastening that must be broken before access can be obtained.

The point of a seal in the courts, is that people including court personnel are physically sealed shut so that they cannot be viewed.  True, some court personnel will have to see them at times, but in the days of the taped envelope, at least that was kept to a minimum.  A pink bar, or a category of electronic data, that the entire courthouse can see, is not a “seal.”  (It may be possible with certain types of encryption or other electronic process to make a digital record difficult to access, by the average user, but the thing that court personnel need to understand is, that there is no encryption that a hacker cannot hack.  That’s what they do.   Hackers hack.  Do you think they do not?  It is no less than foolhardy to put sensitive data in a digital environment if you do not first take the effort to understand the vulnerabilities of the environment, and then take precautions.  There may be some court information that should not be in a digital environment.  I located a posting on the Mn Judicial branch website to indicate digital filing in juvenile cases.  What has been done to ensure the security of those sensitive records?)

The Judge/referee in my case sealed certain records.  (He did not seal al the records, but I’ll come back to that in Part 4.)  So that judge’s order to seal has been violated by the digital scanning/storage mechanism that someone selected.

I still have no response from anyone in the MN Judicial Branch as to who or what made the decision to destroy original court orders and to have them scanned and put into a digital environment.  The public has a right to know.

I am also concerned about the security for this storage system.  Could someone please explain to me what effort were made to:  a) study security and vulnerabilities; and b) put in place practices, physical and electronic safeguards to prevent hacking?  This is important, so please tell your Public.

I looked at two cases at Ramsey County (two file numbers).  My concerns about my cases, multiplied by the number of cases in which there is a seal or confidentiality issue (are juvenile records online now?  Has this been implemented statewide?) equates to is a policy or custom afoot.  Some know what that means.  Others should.  No matter what, you can be sure that this will be pursued.

What is Jeff Shorba’s current role, and will he answer questions from the public?

The email that I received (see “A public question for Sue Dosal from a member of the public” posts, Part 2), said to ask Jeff Shorba or Kristina Ford.  I then sent the following email:

And then followed up with this email, which had my original questions:

I did not see any response.

Is someone going to answer these important questions?  I asked Shorba not to refer me to someone else.

(For out of state readers, these names are all part of the Minnesota Judicial Branch community.)